Why Pakistan wont allow Kashmiris to visit Pakistani Kashmir
habshi
taxpayers ploughing billions is far far higher than Pakistani Kashmir
, so Pakistan wont allow the Pakistani Kashmiris to see how they have
been impoverished by Islam
excerpt dailypioneer.com
The Pakistani conditions are not without cunning purpose. By wanting
to restrict the proposed facility to Kashmiris, it wants to set apart
Jammu and Kashmir from the rest of India. And, by insisting on "state
subject certificates", it wants the re-introduction of documents that
were valid before Jammu and Kashmir's full and final integration with
India. "State subject certificates" have not been valid since 1953.
For India to even touch the Pakistani counter-proposals with a
bargepole, leave alone consider them on merit, will be suicidal. It
will amount to India conceding that Jammu and Kashmir is not an
integral part of its territory, it will be tantamount to conceding
that the law of the land as applicable to all Indians wishing to
travel outside their country is not applicable to the people of Jammu
and Kashmir.
In brief, it will be an acceptance of Pakistan's claim that Jammu and
Kashmir is disputed territory and a negation of India's steadfast
position.
Before Jammu and Kashmir's accession to and integration with India,
the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road was the princely state's main access to
the rest of the world. This was also the road that was used by
Pakistani troops, masquerading as "tribal raiders", to pillage their
way up to Srinagar before being driven back by Indian troops. The road
has been closed since then.India has suggested that the road should be
reopened as a confidence building measure and to promote and
facilitate people-to-people contacts across the LoC; that it should be
treated at par with other similar facilities, for example, the Wagah
border checkpoint, and thus be accessible to all citizens of India and
Pakistan; and, that travellers will have to use a passport and an
entry permit (as opposed to a visa which India had earlier insisted
on) as valid travel documents, of which only the permit will be
stamped. Official sources in the Ministry of External Affairs say that
they had more than an inkling of what would be put across by the
Pakistani delegation at the technical level talks. It appears that the
All-Party Hurriyat Conference, whose leading lights met Pakistani
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz over lunch during his recent visit to New
Delhi, hold similar views on re-opening the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad
road.
The Pakistani counter-proposals fit into the Hurriyat's separatist
agenda. Restricting the bus service facility to Kashmiris strengthens
their claim of "Kashmir for Kashmiris" (and Pakistanis).
Re-introducing and legitimising "state subject certificates" as valid
travel documents means Kashmiris can travel out of India, and not only
via the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road, without passports and visas. More
importantly, it puts to rest all legalities of Jammu and Kashmir's
integration with the Union of India. Official sources point out that
India is willing to make the concession of allowing travellers to use
entry permits, instead of visas, along with their passports as valid
travel documents, bearing in mind that the LoC is not a settled
international border and that India has not yet given up
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as its legal territory under foreign
occupation. But a concession based on ground realities should not be
considered as India's willingness to compromise on its basic position
on Jammu and Kashmir.
Pakistani intransigence is, however, not limited to the proposed
re-opening of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road. Islamabad has responded
in a similar manner to New Delhi's proposal to start a bus service
between Munnabao and Khakhrapar. There used to be a metre gauge rail
link between these two towns that has been in disuse for five decades.
Introducing a bus service is less expensive than re-opening the
defunct rail link.
The Pakistanis have responded to this proposal first by insisting on
re-opening the rail link, then linking it to up-gradation of metre
gauge to broad gauge all over Pakistan, and finally informing India
that it will be at least three to four years before they can marshal
the funds. So, shelve it. The Pakistanis, add the official sources,
from President Gen Pervez Musharraf to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to
Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, have not been found wanting
in welcoming India's confidence building proposals. But there has been
little or no evidence as yet of Pakistan working with India to
implement these proposals. The stalled technical level talks on
re-opening the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road and introducing a bus
service across the LoC is yet another instance of India proposing and
Pakistan disposing.
syed
> The living standards in Indian Kashmir , thanks to Hindu
>taxpayers ploughing billions is far far higher than Pakistani Kashmir
>, so Pakistan wont allow the Pakistani Kashmiris to see how they have
>been impoverished by Islam
Habshi, we read this story in our elementary school. A cat was
strolling , got lost and came across a posh house with great fence
around it and suddenly saw a fat good looking plush cat inside the
fence. Stray cat was living on whatever she could get in the whole day
and was pretty skinny with even ribs can be counted, anyway she said
Hi to the fat cat and came near the fence. Fat cat smiled at her and
showed interest in a conversation. Both started talking and then fat
cat introduce herself as the Golden Havaily cat and told her that
her master is working in the high-tech industry and his name is Jason.
The lean cat was surprised but anyway introduced herself as a street
cat with the name only as neighborhood cat. Fat cat was telling her
she gets milk three times a day and eats pulaao and biryani all the
time. Free cat became jealous and told her that she has to find her
own food and work very hard to chase rats/squirrels all day to get
enough to eat. And sometimes even go to bed without much to eat.
Havaily cat showed her sympathy and promised her to talk to her
master "Jason" and plead her case to get residence in the Havaily on
H-1 visa. Free cat was excited to live in the palace . Anyway the
conversation finally came to an end and when they were parting ,
free cat saw a ring mark around the fat cat's neck. She became
curious and asked , sis what is this ring mark around your neck??
palace cat tried to ignore but finally answered , well I have to wear
a collar all day except for few moments when I come to the yard for
fresh air. .
Free cat was shocked to know that and parted by saying , sis I may be
skinny but happy and love freedom. Have no intention to wear this
collar. I guess I can live without all that milk and honey, Jason
brings to you.
Surinder Singh
"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:hfifr0ltvr1q7i8i3...@4ax.com...
> we read this story in our elementary school. A cat was
> strolling , got lost and came across a posh house with great fence
> around it and suddenly saw a fat good looking plush cat inside the
> fence. Stray cat was living on whatever she could get in the whole day
> and was pretty skinny with even ribs can be counted,
> ...
Syed Ji,
Presumably you are saying that
Indian Kashmiris = Fat but not-free cat
Paki Kashmiris = stray, but free cat.
I am not sure that this analogy makes sense. The Pakistani Kashmiris are
not free in PoK (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir). They have almost no free
elections. The Prime Minister there is a Islamabad crony. Recently, the
constitution was ammended to get a Musharraff military elected there as PM.
The Kashmiris are not free to express their discontent with Pakistan, and
they are not free to choose the indpependence option. In fact, taking a
book out of Chinese book, they have been reduced a minority in their own
province. Punjabis and Pakhtoons have been settled there. By one account
they are a mere 10% of the PoK.
Indian Kashmiris, despite gruelling violence have not migrated to PoK. They
have gone to other Indian states. They elect their own government. They
have regular elections and the elections are judged to be fair by
international observers.
-s
syed
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:hfifr0ltvr1q7i8i3...@4ax.com...
>
>> we read this story in our elementary school. A cat was
>> strolling , got lost and came across a posh house with great fence
>> around it and suddenly saw a fat good looking plush cat inside the
>> fence. Stray cat was living on whatever she could get in the whole day
>> and was pretty skinny with even ribs can be counted,
>> ...
>
>
>
>Syed Ji,
>
>Presumably you are saying that
>
> Indian Kashmiris = Fat but not-free cat
> Paki Kashmiris = stray, but free cat.
>
>I am not sure that this analogy makes sense. The Pakistani Kashmiris are
>not free in PoK (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir).
Surrinder jee,
We call it AK ( Azad Kashmir) while Indian media calls it POK. Does
Indian media call Indian held Kashmir as IOK or not ???? And that
shows their bias.
> They have almost no free
>elections. The Prime Minister there is a Islamabad crony.
Elections there are as free as any Pakistani elections. Party system
even the names mostly are the same as in Pakistan. While you call the
AKPM as Islamabad crony, Pakistani know "Mufti Saeed" as Indian crony.
Difference who represent his people more can be gauged from the test
that after retirement, AK prime minister can roam free in Muzaffarabad
but not Omar Abdullah or Mufti Saeed in Srinagar. .( from this you can
well imagine, who is how much free and who is not)
>Recently, the
>constitution was ammended to get a Musharraff military elected there as PM.
Even the champion of democracy nations are now blamed with election
rigging and arm twisting, nothing new in our part of the world. But I
think, it is not that much as you think, some rigging cannot be ruled
out though.
>The Kashmiris are not free to express their discontent with Pakistan, and
>they are not free to choose the indpependence option.
If there is some truth and weight in what you saying, India can put
this to test by unilaterally agreeing to a plebiscite and that will
put Pakistan in the corner.
> In fact, taking a
>book out of Chinese book, they have been reduced a minority in their own
>province. Punjabis and Pakhtoons have been settled there. By one account
>they are a mere 10% of the PoK.
This is a very baseless allegation. No Pakistani can buy property in
Kashmir as no Indian can buy . There is not much industry or other
jobs in Azad Kashmir even the Kashmiri have to move to Punjab and
Sindh and abroad for jobs, only a dumb Punjabi will move to Kashmir
for living. Even rich Kashmiri prefer to live in Islamabad. If & when
India agreed to plebiscite, Uno will research and will only issue
voting right to kashmiris who can prove they were there for centuries
and not to any other , Punjabi, Pathan or a Hindu,Sikh( those who
never held property or lived there) on the other side.
>
>Indian Kashmiris, despite gruelling violence have not migrated to PoK.
Who will dare going through the barbered wires, minefields and open
fire from both sides other than Jihadis may be. Believe me it is only
propaganda.
> They
>have gone to other Indian states.
Just to earn some money due to unemployment, mostly I think they love
to live in their own land kashmir.
> They elect their own government. They
>have regular elections and the elections are judged to be fair by
>international observers.
We know elections are there but fair, that is a tall claim. We saw in
news , people were dragged to the polling stations to vote.
Regards,
Hindian
general in power and no democracy. The entire national agenda centers
around exporting islamic terrorism & violence to neighbouring
countries (both Afghanistan and India).
Ironically pakistanis themselves were converted by force to islam by
arab terrorists using these same thuggery tactics. Basically they
have been made slaves to a foreign religion & culture which they are
forced to ape.
I think the average pakistani wants to believe he's the glorious
invader (not the vanquished) living in the 7th century and that
violence & terrorism against others will bring him rich rewards.
However this being the 21st century, the opposite has turned out to be
true.
Between military coups, constitution & election rigging on the part of
musharaff and spreading terrorism, can you tell me what 'freedom' the
average pakistani has. Or even what pakistan has going for it?
Its a textbook case of a failed state without a future. If americans
were to stop pumping aid into the economy, the country would collapse
and turn into a taliban state.
That is the truth and you know it.
§§ Blue Ice §§
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:55:23 -0600, "Surinder Singh"
> <com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>>news:hfifr0ltvr1q7i8i3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>Presumably you are saying that
>>
>> Indian Kashmiris = Fat but not-free cat
>> Paki Kashmiris = stray, but free cat.
>>
>>I am not sure that this analogy makes sense. The Pakistani Kashmiris are
>>not free in PoK (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir).
>
>
> Surrinder jee,
>
> We call it AK ( Azad Kashmir) while Indian media calls it POK. Does
> Indian media call Indian held Kashmir as IOK or not ???? And that
> shows their bias.
Azad from what?
Pakistan is controlling it in all the aspects, roads, electricity and
water, and therefore industries are hard to come by in the so called
"Azad Kashmir" . What has Pakistan made it, "Azad" from the material
benefits of the modern world?
syed
<Blue...@spamcop.gov> wrote:
>syed wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:55:23 -0600, "Surinder Singh"
>> <com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>>>news:hfifr0ltvr1q7i8i3...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>Syed Ji,
>>>
>>>Presumably you are saying that
>>>
>>> Indian Kashmiris = Fat but not-free cat
>>> Paki Kashmiris = stray, but free cat.
>>>
>>>I am not sure that this analogy makes sense. The Pakistani Kashmiris are
>>>not free in PoK (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir).
>>
>>
>> Surrinder jee,
>>
>> We call it AK ( Azad Kashmir) while Indian media calls it POK. Does
>> Indian media call Indian held Kashmir as IOK or not ???? And that
>> shows their bias.
>
>Azad from what?
Form Hindu bigotry, dominance and brutality.
>Pakistan is controlling it in all the aspects, roads, electricity and
>water,
There is a functioning government in Azad Kashmir like you say you
have in IOK. and it is as free as Pakistan is. In Pakistan side army
is only on the broders watching Indian army. In IOK, army is all over,
killing and getting killed at the hands of freedom fighters.
A huge difference dear neighbor. Pakistan army is not fighting a war
with kashmiris , India is and that is the proof who is free and who
is not.
>and therefore industries are hard to come by
I don't think Tata Pur is in Kashmir. barla has any industry either in
Kashmir or am I mistaken. Kashmiri are living on what they have.
> in the so called
>"Azad Kashmir" . What has Pakistan made it, "Azad" from the material
>benefits of the modern world?
Modern world benefits are same in Azad Kashmir as they are in rest of
Pakistan( not much diffference , infact may be little more than some
areas of Pakistan)
You must be ashamed to say that as the basic benefits of modern
world( a flushable toilet hooked to a sewer line) is not even
available in Bangalore ironically called "silicon valley" of India.
syed
<hin...@jaihindhindhind.com> wrote:
>The average pakistani is too ignorant to realise he has a military
>general in power and no democracy.
But if democracy brings in corrupt & murderous leadership like in
neighboring India, what good is that democracy???
> The entire national agenda centers
>around exporting islamic terrorism & violence to neighbouring
>countries (both Afghanistan and India).
Why Afghanis then came to Pakistan if it was so bad??? One Afghani who
went back t Afghanistan was still sobbing remembering Pakistan, it was
so good there, he had his own van to work and plenty of food and even
own house on government land.
>Ironically pakistanis themselves were converted by force to islam by
>arab terrorists using these same thuggery tactics.
Brahmans told you that lie. Cursed & oppressed People accepted Islam
with open hands in India. At least they were elevated to an equal
level from a very unequal and cursed level.
> Basically they
>have been made slaves to a foreign religion & culture which they are
>forced to ape.
We see lot of Indians aping for dollars, from Jason to Susannah as .
Indians films aping Hollywood.
>I think the average pakistani wants to believe he's the glorious
>invader (not the vanquished) living in the 7th century
No we believe in equality of all humans without much regard to his
caste or ethnic background.
>and that
>violence & terrorism against others will bring him rich rewards.
No even those who are fighting in Kashmir and Palestine and Chechnya
believe they are liberating their land, people from the clutches of
others which they took .
Surinder Singh
> Difference who represent his people more can be gauged from the test
> that after retirement, AK prime minister can roam free in Muzaffarabad
> but not Omar Abdullah or Mufti Saeed in Srinagar. .( from this you can
> well imagine, who is how much free and who is not)
The law and order in Indian Kashmir is bad and hence the politicians cannot
move around freely. Many politicians and many moderates have been killed by
the Jihadis. That violence, is an export fromt the training camps from
Pakistani Kashmir. Before from 1950 to 1990, did Kashmiris in Indian
Kashmir not move about freely?
> If there is some truth and weight in what you saying, India can put
> this to test by unilaterally agreeing to a plebiscite and that will
> put Pakistan in the corner.
Actually, it is Pakistan which should demonstrate its great committment to
freedom and choice and do a plebiscite in its Kashmir, Northern Areas.
Actually a plebiscite in Baloochistan and NWFP might not be a bad idea
either.
>> In fact, taking a
>>book out of Chinese book, they have been reduced a minority in their own
>>province. Punjabis and Pakhtoons have been settled there. By one account
>>they are a mere 10% of the PoK.
>
> This is a very baseless allegation.
> ...
No it is not. Recently there was an article by Mr. Kuldip Nayar, posted by
Mr. NK Datta. He says this. I have read it from multple sources that
Kashmiris in "Azaad" Kashmir are a minority. Some reports even put their
number at approximated 20%.
>>Indian Kashmiris, despite gruelling violence have not migrated to PoK.
>
> Who will dare going through the barbered wires, minefields and open
> fire from both sides other than Jihadis may be. Believe me it is only
> propaganda.
> Just to earn some money due to unemployment, mostly I think they love
> to live in their own land kashmir.
If the Indian oppression is so brutal as it is claimed to be, there should
be at least some movement of Kashmiris to their supposed beloved land of
Pakistan. There were refugees pouring in from Bangladesh in India in 1970.
The Afghans came streaming into Pakistan in 1980's. Kashmiri Pundits
became refugees in Delhi and Jammu. If the Indian state brutality was
indeed as brutal, there would have been some Kashmiri Muslim refugees.
Since the only movement has been small and it has been to India proper, it
makes zero sense. One would expect that "brutally suppressed" helpless
would people go *away* from the source of suppression; they would not be
expected to migrate *to* the source of that suppression (Hindu Delhi and
Hindu remaining India).
-s
Surinder Singh
> But if democracy brings in corrupt & murderous leadership like in
> neighboring India, what good is that democracy???
Because, without democracy the rulers would be even more corrupt and even
more murderous. Plus, you can still change them by ballot, instead of
bullet.
> Why Afghanis then came to Pakistan if it was so bad???
That is simple. Because Pakistan was, and still is, better off than
Afghanistan. Of course, being better than Afghanistan is hardly anything to
be proud of.
>>Ironically pakistanis themselves were converted by force to islam by
>>arab terrorists using these same thuggery tactics.
>
> Brahmans told you that lie. Cursed & oppressed People accepted Islam
> with open hands in India. At least they were elevated to an equal
> level from a very unequal and cursed level.
No this is not a "Brahmin" lie. It is a fact, told by historians and often
even by the invaders themselves. Islam has its own caste system. The
elite "Sayed"'s who are direct descendents from Arabia. The Arabs vs. the
non-arabs. The bearded ones as opposed to the non-bearded ones.
> No we believe in equality of all humans without much regard to his
> caste or ethnic background.
Are you sure? Even the equality of non-Muslim Kaafirs with the Momins?
> No even those who are fighting in Kashmir and Palestine and Chechnya
> believe they are liberating their land, people from the clutches of
> others which they took .
Funny, that Pakistanis never include Uiguirs in this list.
-s
Surinder Singh
Syed Ji,
You are busy contradicting yourself and releiving us of the responsibility
of arguing with you.
In this post you write:
> Modern world benefits are same in Azad Kashmir as they are in rest of
> Pakistan( not much diffference , infact may be little more than some
> areas of Pakistan)
and in the previous post you write:
> There is not much industry or other
> jobs in Azad Kashmir even the Kashmiri have to move to Punjab and
> Sindh and abroad for jobs, only a dumb Punjabi will move to Kashmir
> for living. Even rich Kashmiri prefer to live in Islamabad.
What gives?
-s
§§ Blue Ice §§
Mr Syed,
Its easy to say so while u r living in USA, but have you ever been to
Kashmir??
Only the Gvt can setup an industry there, as all others have to "rent "
the place, they can't own the land and they can't lease the land, so
will you be able to invest the money at such a place.
The govt. gives away too much to the kashmiries, it is a known fact.
the ppl there are used to getting free stuff.
u also know it well the porkistan is a basket case of a banana republic.
how can u talk about democracy and peblicite when yr country has more
been ruled by military rather than the "elected govt"? don't u remember
gen zia's referendum "do u favor islam?" or recently gen mushy's ?
as far as rigging of elections is concerned, it is not something with
happend in kashmir only, it happens everywhere, to a varying degree. can
u vouch that the elections is your country had been fair and square
always?
syed
Surinder jee,
I am not contradicting myself here . I am talking about civic
amenities like electricity, sewerage , telephone etc . And they really
are the same , in fact somewhat better then rural Pakistan in AK.
However as far as industry and jobs are concerned , the situation is
different. Industry need easy access to market, communication and
educated and technical public. Kashmir does not supply that at the
moment , hence not much industry is there. So is the case in Indian
side also except may be tourism and some cottage industry.
syed
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:c73lr0l8g8bnpub2q...@4ax.com...
>
>> But if democracy brings in corrupt & murderous leadership like in
>> neighboring India, what good is that democracy???
>
>Because, without democracy the rulers would be even more corrupt and even
>more murderous. Plus, you can still change them by ballot, instead of
>bullet.
That changing with a vote is becoming a myth any more even in
advanced countries where democracy has deep roots. But in
democracies like India, Pakistan where illiterate segment of society
, tribal or caste influence and corruption is very intense, changing
with vote is not possible. Even in India where they changed government
with a vote, it is like changing one set of crooks with other set of
crooks( choice is limited) and an educated and average man hardly
contests.
>> Why Afghanis then came to Pakistan if it was so bad???
>
>That is simple. Because Pakistan was, and still is, better off than
>Afghanistan. Of course, being better than Afghanistan is hardly anything to
>be proud of.
Granted but India is not much better where a Bangla Deshi comes to
work, when you watch news that for very low level railway job(
lineman) and gate operator thousands of people applied and ever
rioted and killed each other( Biharis verses West Bengalis)
>>>Ironically pakistanis themselves were converted by force to islam by
>>>arab terrorists using these same thuggery tactics.
may be some (always the case as few Muslim converted back to Hinduism
per Indian news) but majority did change voluntarily as Islam at least
offered equality without race, caste or else.
>> Brahmans told you that lie. Cursed & oppressed People accepted Islam
>> with open hands in India. At least they were elevated to an equal
>> level from a very unequal and cursed level.
>
>No this is not a "Brahmin" lie. It is a fact, told by historians and often
>even by the invaders themselves. Islam has its own caste system. The
>elite "Sayed"'s who are direct descendents from Arabia.
I belong to a syed family but honestly no one even in Pakistan gives
a hoot about it anymore and not even me myself. . I did not even gave
a sir name "syed" to my children. I like the idea in Islam , one whose
deeds are better , is more superior & near and dear to God then any
rich or famous tribe fellow.
> The Arabs vs. the
>non-arabs. The bearded ones as opposed to the non-bearded ones.
Did you see in Pakistan, bearded ever got any election victories even
in small provinces until US forces came to Afghanistan. They always
lost elections.
>
>> No we believe in equality of all humans without much regard to his
>> caste or ethnic background.
>
>Are you sure? Even the equality of non-Muslim Kaafirs with the Momins?
Kafir means non-believer and as Christians believe all non Christians
will go to hell, so does Muslim that all non believers will go hell
except the one who never got the message. However sittings, eating and
interacting with non-muslim is allowed . I think even the prophet had
dined with non believer kings and others.
>> No even those who are fighting in Kashmir and Palestine and Chechnya
>> believe they are liberating their land, people from the clutches of
>> others which they took .
>
>Funny, that Pakistanis never include Uiguirs in this list.
>
>-s
>
Uiguirs are not fighting for liberation but I think for their human
rights in China. There is not any significant separation movement is
going on there as in Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya.
habshi
A million Muslim Kashmiri refugees from the valley , driven out by
Jihadis are in India .
Gulshan Khan (wada Sain)
Load of horse shit, like always... HRW has quite a lot that blow you
indoos to mars.
Surinder Singh
> I am not contradicting myself here . I am talking about civic
> amenities like electricity, sewerage , telephone etc . And they really
> are the same , in fact somewhat better then rural Pakistan in AK.
> However as far as industry and jobs are concerned , the situation is
> different. Industry need easy access to market, communication and
> educated and technical public. Kashmir does not supply that at the
> moment , hence not much industry is there.
But Sayed Ji, you are still contradicting yourself. On one hand you attempt
to refute Blue Ice's statement, who said that Azaad Kashmir is Azaad of
material quality of life. So you say that water, electricity etc. is
better but then do acknowledge that Industry and jobs are not there. So
Blue Ice is indeed correct in his assertion. He never said that water,
roads and electricity are worse off, he merely stated that it is in
Pakistani control and hence there is no industry there.
-s
Surinder Singh
> That changing with a vote is becoming a myth any more even in
> advanced countries where democracy has deep roots. But in
> democracies like India, Pakistan where illiterate segment of society
> , tribal or caste influence and corruption is very intense, changing
> with vote is not possible. Even in India where they changed government
> with a vote, it is like changing one set of crooks with other set of
> crooks( choice is limited) and an educated and average man hardly
> contests.
Your statement has too many fallacies. You say "democracies like India,
Pakistan...". Why on earth would you lump the two countries together defies
logic. Pakistan is not a democracy and has not been for half its existence.
The statement should be "democracies like India, and military dictatorships
like Pakistan ..." Secondly, being able to change by ballot and not
bullet is a great thing. It beats having to have a violent convulsion
merely to unseat one government or leader. If changing by ballot has not
worked out too well for Pakistan, we are sorry, but our experience in India
has been far better.
> Granted but India is not much better where a Bangla Deshi comes to
> work, when you watch news that for very low level railway job(
> lineman) and gate operator thousands of people applied and ever
> rioted and killed each other( Biharis verses West Bengalis)
What is the relevance of this? We are discussing the relative status of
Kashmiris in India and Pakistan.
>>>>Ironically pakistanis themselves were converted by force to islam by
>>>>arab terrorists using these same thuggery tactics.
>
> may be some (always the case as few Muslim converted back to Hinduism
> per Indian news) but majority did change voluntarily as Islam at least
> offered equality without race, caste or else.
How do you know the majority converted voluntarily. Historical evidence
suggests that majority was coerced into accepting Islam. Some of those
barbaric perpetrators, wrote about this themselves.
>>> No we believe in equality of all humans without much regard to his
>>> caste or ethnic background.
>>
>>Are you sure? Even the equality of non-Muslim Kaafirs with the Momins?
>
> Kafir means non-believer and as Christians believe all non Christians
> will go to hell, so does Muslim that all non believers will go hell
> except the one who never got the message. However sittings, eating and
> interacting with non-muslim is allowed . I think even the prophet had
> dined with non believer kings and others.
You did not answer the question. You had stated that Islam beleives in the
equality of all humans. I asked if it beleives in the equality of Kaafir
versus Momin. You need to answer this question, rather than talk about
Christian beleifs and the Holy Prophets dining companions.
> Uiguirs are not fighting for liberation but I think for their human
> rights in China. There is not any significant separation movement is
> going on there as in Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya.
This is humbug. Uighuirs are fighting for an independent East Turkestan.
Their rights are brutally trampled upon by China and Hun Chinese are being
settled in Xinjiang to water their population down. They have resorted to
an armed struggle. Pakistan has handed over many a Uighir over to China.
So much for the pan-Islamic Muslim brotherhood. Pakistan handed over an
Uighur leader named Ismail Kadir a few years back. In fact two Chinese
engineers wroking in Pakistan were abducted and one killed by Uighurs
separatists.
-s
Surinder Singh
> There is a functioning government in Azad Kashmir like you say you
> have in IOK. and it is as free as Pakistan is. In Pakistan side army
> is only on the broders watching Indian army. In IOK, army is all over,
> killing and getting killed at the hands of freedom fighters.
>
> A huge difference dear neighbor. Pakistan army is not fighting a war
> with kashmiris , India is and that is the proof who is free and who
> is not.
How is this a proof? Please clarify.
Let us look at the facts: There is an insurgency going in Kashmir. Pakistan
is training and arming and sending in Jihadis. These terrorists are mostly
not Kashmiris. They are often Punjabis, Chechens, Arabs, and Afghans. So
the army is there everywhere "killing and getting killed." Also the
moderates, the peace loving, the patriotic Kashmiris, and anyone who does
not agree with the Jihadis is getting killed too. The women without Hijab
and in Jeans are also not left alone by these Islam-inspired Jihadis. India
is not sending in terrorists into Pakistani Kashmir. So the Army need not
be there in the interior. Before 1990, Indian army was not all over
either. In fact, people from all over India moved about freely in Kashmir
too during that time.
So if there is anyone who has caused the Kashmiris to loose freedom, it is
the Pakistanis and their proxy Jihadis.
-s
syed
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:6r4rr09bngh20pr1t...@4ax.com...
>
>> That changing with a vote is becoming a myth any more even in
>> advanced countries where democracy has deep roots. But in
>> democracies like India, Pakistan where illiterate segment of society
>> , tribal or caste influence and corruption is very intense, changing
>> with vote is not possible. Even in India where they changed government
>> with a vote, it is like changing one set of crooks with other set of
>> crooks( choice is limited) and an educated and average man hardly
>> contests.
>
>
>Your statement has too many fallacies. You say "democracies like India,
>Pakistan...". Why on earth would you lump the two countries together defies
>logic.
Though I would agree with you about India more democratic than
Pakistan , I was talking about the period( how short or intermittent
that may be) whenever there was some sort of democracy in Pakistan.
So cool it. Indian democracy is not really a great democracy( it is
mostly based on tribal, caste, religion and corruption based) . it
may be better than Pakistan but a real democracy still not there.
> Pakistan is not a democracy and has not been for half its existence.
true but right here you did admit , that another half was democratic(
whatever weak or dictatorial it may be) . personally I do not think,
there ever was democracy in Pakistan, it was vadera cracy, technocracy
or goondacracy( if you really want to know)
>The statement should be "democracies like India, and military dictatorships
>like Pakistan ..."
Force, intimidation, corruption and illegal use of government is the
hall mark of both democratic or not.
> Secondly, being able to change by ballot and not
>bullet is a great thing.
I agree with you here. India sure has that edge on Pakistan.
>It beats having to have a violent convulsion
>merely to unseat one government or leader.
When a so called democratic leader acts like and behave like a
dictator, it becomes the only option available to people.
> If changing by ballot has not
>worked out too well for Pakistan, we are sorry, but our experience in India
>has been far better.
But choice is limited to a corrupt party or B corrupt party. So vote
for whoever, you will get a BJP crook or Congress crook. For a
commoner, poverty, misery and lawlessness is always there.
>
>
>> Granted but India is not much better where a Bangla Deshi comes to
>> work, when you watch news that for very low level railway job(
>> lineman) and gate operator thousands of people applied and ever
>> rioted and killed each other( Biharis verses West Bengalis)
>
>What is the relevance of this? We are discussing the relative status of
>Kashmiris in India and Pakistan.
This was in response to what you said, An Afghani coming & thinking of
Pakistan Dubai, same is true for India if a Bengali comes and thinks,
it is a heaven.
>
>>>>>Ironically pakistanis themselves were converted by force to islam by
>>>>>arab terrorists using these same thuggery tactics.
>>
>> may be some (always the case as few Muslim converted back to Hinduism
>> per Indian news) but majority did change voluntarily as Islam at least
>> offered equality without race, caste or else.
>
>How do you know the majority converted voluntarily. Historical evidence
>suggests that majority was coerced into accepting Islam. Some of those
>barbaric perpetrators, wrote about this themselves.
If that was true what you saying, majority of Muslim would have
converted back to Hinduism in these 57 years as the Hindu government
and all extremist Hindu parties would have helped them, bribed them to
do that. they did not that shows, there parents converted with their
own will,. otherwise parent to children, it must have been transferred
that they were converted by force and go back to Hinduism as soon as
you get a chance( 57 years of Hindu dominant government is/was a high
time to convert back)
>
>>>> No we believe in equality of all humans without much regard to his
>>>> caste or ethnic background.
>>>
>>>Are you sure? Even the equality of non-Muslim Kaafirs with the Momins?
>>
>> Kafir means non-believer and as Christians believe all non Christians
>> will go to hell, so does Muslim that all non believers will go hell
>> except the one who never got the message. However sittings, eating and
>> interacting with non-muslim is allowed . I think even the prophet had
>> dined with non believer kings and others.
>
>You did not answer the question. You had stated that Islam beleives in the
>equality of all humans. I asked if it beleives in the equality of Kaafir
>versus Momin. You need to answer this question, rather than talk about
>Christian beleifs and the Holy Prophets dining companions.
Yes equality means drinking water from the same well, buying food from
the same grocery shop, playing together, living together. I grew up in
Pakistan and a good friend of mine was Christian and he enjoyed all
those opportunities we did, ended up with an MBA from Quaid-a-Azam
university and a job in a famed international company in Pakistan.
Dos this answer your Q ?
>> Uiguirs are not fighting for liberation but I think for their human
>> rights in China. There is not any significant separation movement is
>> going on there as in Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya.
>
>
>This is humbug. Uighuirs are fighting for an independent East Turkestan.
>Their rights are brutally trampled upon by China and Hun Chinese are being
>settled in Xinjiang to water their population down. They have resorted to
>an armed struggle. Pakistan has handed over many a Uighir over to China.
forget Pakistan, western media will not hide it if there is big
problem. There is a problem but not to the level of Palestine, Kashmir
or Chechnya. admit it.
>So much for the pan-Islamic Muslim brotherhood. Pakistan handed over an
>Uighur leader named Ismail Kadir a few years back. In fact two Chinese
>engineers wroking in Pakistan were abducted and one killed by Uighurs
>separatists.
Any proof of that. Yes there were abductions but I don’t believe they
were Uiguirs who did it
>-s
>
syed
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:2r4rr0dd4gigubkji...@4ax.com...
>
>> I am not contradicting myself here . I am talking about civic
>> amenities like electricity, sewerage , telephone etc . And they really
>> are the same , in fact somewhat better then rural Pakistan in AK.
>> However as far as industry and jobs are concerned , the situation is
>> different. Industry need easy access to market, communication and
>> educated and technical public. Kashmir does not supply that at the
>> moment , hence not much industry is there.
>
>But Sayed Ji, you are still contradicting yourself. On one hand you attempt
>to refute Blue Ice's statement, who said that Azaad Kashmir is Azaad of
>material quality of life. So you say that water, electricity etc. is
>better but then do acknowledge that Industry and jobs are not there. So
>Blue Ice is indeed correct in his assertion.
But my dear Surrinder Jee you forgot to mention what i said about IOK,
there are no jobs, industries there either other than putting a fat
jumbo Banyaa on a skinny mule and take him for a walk on the Dall
lake perimeter and may be some cottage industry like Shawl knitting
etc
> He never said that water,
>roads and electricity are worse off, he merely stated that it is in
>Pakistani control and hence there is no industry there.
You conveniently forgot what mitigating factors are necessary to have
industry like infrastructure, ports, skilled labor and raw material .
We don’t have it and IOK don’t have it and then the war has chased any
potential investor there on both sides. So Kashmir is suffering , all
beacsue he is weak and can't force these two neighbors to leave them
alone to decide their fate with a vote.
>
>-s
>
syed
<Blue...@spamcop.gov> wrote:
>Mr Syed,
>Its easy to say so while u r living in USA, but have you ever been to
>Kashmir??
No but media and internet tells a lot.
>Only the Gvt can setup an industry there, as all others have to "rent "
>the place,
Not a problem really , lots of businesses in America are on rented
property. Even the big ones .
>they can't own the land and they can't lease the land, so
>will you be able to invest the money at such a place.
A business man cares only about his bottom line, if by paying rent,
leasing all the equipment , he nets a good chunk of money at the end
of year, he cares less. in fact many businesses like land development
people intentionally do not own any heavy equipment but prefer to rent
or lease it for the duration of job. No storage, no maintenance , no
insurance , no liability are few advantages.
>The govt. gives away too much to the kashmiries, it is a known fact.
>the ppl there are used to getting free stuff.
I don’t see many Kashmiris rich . And why Indian government is doing
that and getting her sons killed is beyond me. I read an article,
which kind a agree with you, it said Kashmir more than an asset a
liability but then why Banayaa is hanging on to it and giving so many
of his sons bleedan there.
>
>u also know it well the porkistan is a basket case of a banana republic.
Don't jump to high, India also was only up to few years back. Thanks
to IT labor, India has gathered few dollars but still abject poverty
is the hall mark of India.
>how can u talk about democracy and peblicite when yr country has more
>been ruled by military rather than the "elected govt"?
Army is in power due to Banyaa 's wrong policy on Kashmir. After
Kashmir Pak army will be weakened to the point, it will never ever be
able to grab power from politicians how corrupt they may be.
>don't u remember
>gen zia's referendum "do u favor islam?" or recently gen mushy's ?
Yes I do.
>as far as rigging of elections is concerned, it is not something with
>happend in kashmir only, it happens everywhere, to a varying degree. can
> u vouch that the elections is your country had been fair and square
>always?
No but then even a military dictator whom I hated so profoundly,
did conduct a very fair elections( yayha Khan) but then a Vadera
named Bhutto sabotaged it and rest is history.
habshi
converted back to Hinduism in these 57 years as the Hindu government
and all extremist Hindu parties would have helped them, bribed them to
do that. they did not that shows, th<
They would have , if the stupid Hindu seculars had not
approved a huge number of appeasments which even Pakistan denies its
Muslims
-polygamy
-money to go on Haj
-donations from temples confiscated and given to mulalhs and mosques
habshi
since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Approximately 60,000
Afghans live in India, of whom a mere 16,000 possess certificates
issued by the UNHCR. They are not recognised as refugees by the Indian
Government. India, which is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees, allows UNHCR to operate a
programme for the refugees in New Delhi, most of whom are Afghans.
Relations between the local UNHCR mission and the Afghan refugees have
turned very sour in the 1990s.
The problems of the Afghan refugees can be solved to a great extent if
they are granted Indian citizenship at the earliest.
The refugees are determined not to go back to Afghanistan because
there is no hope of any liberal government coming to power there.
Most of the Afghan refugees have taken up jobs in private companies
and shops. A large number of them have sold costly goods to purchase
daily necessities and pay rents of houses.
When contacted police sources said a close watch was being kept on the
refugees as there were some bad elements among them. Recently Kalyan
Singh, alias Inder Singh, had deported to Afghanistan by air for
indulging in smuggling activities.
habshi
Surinder Singh wrote:
> No it is not. Recently there was an article by Mr. Kuldip Nayar
> .... He says this. I have read it from multple sources that
> Kashmiris in "Azaad" Kashmir are a minority. Some reports even
> put their number at approximated 20%.
>
Yes, Kuldip Nayar did describe "Azad Kashmir" (PoK) as Punjabi
majority. And the Kashmiri speakers in "Azad Kashmir" number
about 100,000 which is about 2% (not 20%) of the population.
It needs to be noted that Kashmiri language is far less
significant in "Azad" Kashmir than it is in Jammu & Kashmir
in India across the LoC. In PoK Punjabi/Lahandi/Pothwari is
far more important today than Kashmiri:
(1) According to latest census figures, only about 100,000 in PoK
(Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) claim Kashmiri as their mother tongue.
This is in sharp contrast to Jammu & Kashmir across the LoC where
more than 4 million claim Kashmiri as their mother tongue.
(2) Kashmiri speakers lack the critical mass to be significant
in PoK. They form a mere 2% of the population. In sharp contrast,
nearly the half the population of Jammu & Kashmir claim Kashmiri
as their mother tongue.
(3) Institute of Kashmir Studies in Muzaffarabad does some
language promotion - but observers have acknowledged that it is
a lost cause in PoK.
To retain Jammu & Kashmir's sense of identity, the Indian
Government scrupulously honored a law (enforced by the Dogra
Maharajas of the State) which forbade any non-Kashmiri, someone
not born or a resident of the State, from acquiring immovable
property of any kind in the State. This was done to ensure that
the demographic character of the State is not altered. The law
exists and is enforced to this today.
Contrast this with the virtual colonization of Pakistan Occupied
Kashmir (PoK) and also of the so-called Northern Areas of
Pakistan.
It is only the Jammu and Kashmir on the Indian side of the LoC
that has retained a legacy (from Maharaja's time) that prevents
non-residents of the state from acquiring immovable property.
But that is certainly not true on the Pakistan side of the LoC.
This has led to a drastic alteration in the demographic
composition of PoK.
Here are excerpts from a Pakistani writer explaining why Pakistan's
case for usurption of Jammu & Kashmir is viewed
as untenable by the rest of the world including the OIC
countries:
==================================================================
The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
December 10-16, 2004
Our treatment of the minorities and Kashmir
By Khaled Ahmed
excerpts:
..... Why and how did our case become weak?
(1) Highlighting Kashmir or negatively highlighting Pakistan?
We tried very hard to get the international opinion to focus on
Kashmir, through diplomacy and through other means. We called it
'highlighting the Kashmir dispute'. We thought the Islamic world
would support us but we discovered that the anti-India OIC resolutions
did not reflect the real bilateral content of the relations these
Islamic states enjoyed with India. Increasingly everyone began
referring to the Simla Agreement as a kind of subterfuge in the face
of
our intense diplomacy. The message was: talk to India, don't ask us
to support you on Kashmir. Then we did the ultimate thing under the
'highlighting' policy by staging Kargil. There was a veiled threat
in it of a nuclear holocaust.
The world did not bite. Had we analysed the world opinion in the
post-Zia period, we would not have got on to Kargil. The West was
particularly worried about our treatment of the non-Muslims in
Pakistan. Zia's separate electorates had debased the minorities by
separating them, a formula the West had learned to abominate. The
Blasphemy Law and the Law of Evidence that imposed disabilities on
non-Muslims were criticised by human rights organisations and
Islamabad
was told to at least take informal steps to lessen the cruelty of
these
laws. No one talked of Kashmir till 1990 and when the dispute was
revived by Pakistan through the infiltration of non-state mercenaries
to Held Kashmir, the West was already predisposed in favour of secular
India keeping Kashmir rather than Islamic Pakistan taking it.
(2) Infiltrating tough Islam into Kashmir:
India was the old Soviet bloc state and the West was wary of it. But
in
1990, India began to reform itself economically while Pakistan stepped
into the morass of jihad. The image of India as a tolerant and free
state was enhanced by Pakistan when it began chanting for the blood of
its minorities by first marginalizing them under separate electorates
then victimising them with blasphemy. Democracy seemed to deepen the
crisis of intolerance in Pakistan. After supporting the Taliban and
watching their draconian brand of governance, Pakistan began to yearn
for Talibanisation. Prime minister Nawaz Sharif who had a two-thirds
majority in the National Assembly got his 15th amendment passed with a
provision made in it of the amr bil maroof type of religious policing
fancied by the Taliban. Had he stayed in power he would have got the
law passed from a newly replenished Senate and become Pakistan's
caliph.
What upset the world most was the Deobandi-Salafist Islam the
mercenaries spread in Kashmir after infiltrating it with the help of
the ISI. The West was persuaded into believing that Islam in the
Valley
at least was of the mystical kind and that it was possible for the
religious communities to coexist peacefully once the religious
fanatics
infiltrated into Kashmir by Pakistan were expelled from there. It
disapproved of India violating human rights, but it abhorred Pakistan
sending in the Islamic warriors. Even if some components of the
Pakistani state saw that jihad was undermining civil society and
bleeding the state of its internal sovereignty no one thought of
changing the strategy. Vested interests around jihad were simply too
powerful. Without first conquering Kashmir, they even thought of
spreading terror in Central Asia as well.
(3) Losing Islamic support on Kashmir:
The world support Pakistan lost included the support of the Muslim
world. When the ISI facilitated Aiman al Zawahiri, it knew that he was
wanted in Egypt for the assassination of President Sadat. The brother
of the killer who led the attack was allowed to live in Peshawar; and
then Aimal Al Zawahiri was allowed to blow up the Egyptian embassy in
Islamabad. Mullah Krekar, whose Kurd terrorists have haunted Turkey a
long time, was allowed to train in Afghanistan then allowed to teach
at
the International Islamic University in Islamabad together with the
mentor of Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam. Turkey supported India
after
the episode with Krekar; and the highwater mark of it was when prime
minister Ecevit arrived in India chanting the Bhagwat Gita.
Real depths were plumbed when terrorists were allowed to teach at our
premier institutions. The results are evident today. No cleric is
mindful of the Kashmir issue when he comes on TV channels and
announces
that the Quran ordains hatred of the Jew and the Hindu. The claim on
the state of Jammu & Kashmir doesn't have even the fig-leaf of a
promise to treat the non-Muslims at par with the Muslim population. If
8 million Kashmiris fall to us, fully 3 million of them will be
non-Muslims. Who will protect them from us and our savage laws?
President Musharraf is now inching towards a division of Kashmir on
the
basis of religion because he knows he can't guarantee equal treatment
of the non-Muslims. He has tried but failed to scrap the Blasphemy Law
although one can't keep from him the credit of removing the separate
electorates.
(4) Objectives Resolution and Kashmir:
Pakistan simply did not focus on the importance of the UN Security
Council resolutions after they were awarded in 1948 in response to an
Indian application. At that point the only pointer to the nature of
the
Pakistani state was the secular pledge made by the Quaid on 11 August
1947. Had the Objectives Resolution been passed then and the protest
of
the non-Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly been communicated
to
the Council it would never have recommended an either/or plebiscite
with the possibility of more non-Muslims falling to the share of
Pakistan. Later, UN envoy Owen Dixon saw the reality as it was and
recommended a 'regional' plebiscite on the basis of religion. He it
was who got Liaquat and Nehru to meet in 1950 to exchange mutual
reassurances on the minorities. By his time much had happened to
change
the mind of the world that was otherwise divided into black and white.
Pakistan was supported in the West because it was in the right bloc at
the onset of the Cold War. If the West saw Pakistan ominously moving
towards a non-secular identity in the 1950s, it equally saw India
moving towards a possible communist-totalitarian destiny. At least
that
is the point of view from which Korbel wrote his book Danger in
Kashmir
. After the Cold War, the blinkers in the West are off and Pakistan is
seen standing close to the precipice over which Mullah Umar took his
Afghanistan. Allowing Pakistan to take any territory containing
non-Muslims would be a most unattractive option. Indeed, the West is
likely to accept the thesis of kashmiryat which envisages the Hindu
and
Muslim communities in the Valley living in peace in a pluralist
environment provided by India.
(5) Kashmir and exodus of partition:
What happened after partition did not bode well for the Kashmir
solution. Much of the exodus of populations was then hidden from the
eyes of the world, but the facts - as they were revealed later - were
stark. The exodus of Hindus from East Pakistan was gradual. Only
344,000 fled to West Bengal in 1947, but in 1948 and 1949 nearly a
million came across because of intolerance and rioting. The year 1949
was the year of the adoption of the Objectives Resolution over the
protests of the Hindu members of the Constituent Assembly in Pakistan.
Since not many Muslims had fled across to the other side from West
Bengal, and since the government in Calcutta did not pursue the policy
of forcible evacuation, the Hindu refugees could not be easily settled
on arrival.
In 1950, the Liaquat-Nehru pact, based on assurances to the
minorities,
was signed between India and Pakistan to stem the tide of the exodus,
but no improvement took place in the situation in East Pakistan. JN
Mandal - who had supported the Pakistan Movement and was thus
considered the leader of the Hindus in East Pakistan - resigned from
the central cabinet in Karachi in 1950 and left for India. That year,
over 1.5 million Hindus fled to West Bengal. The biggest exodus
finally
was that of the Bengali Hindus: 8 million out of a total of 18 million
in both east and west!
==================================================================
Gulshan Khan (wada Sain)
Horse-shit sniped, stupid wog!
Here is some tids bids from HRW site....I can get you a whole
encyclopaedia on Indian state terrorism
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/doda.htm#P187_42784
Rape and Torture in Doda
Indian forces and paramilitary militias working with them have been
responsible for rape throughout the conflict.
***********************************************
Disappearances"
Human rights groups in Kashmir have documented more than three hundred
cases of "disappearances" since 1990.34 Lawyers believe the number to
be far higher, however, as many relatives do not contact a lawyer out
of fear of reprisal. Neither the Indian government nor any of the
security agencies operating in the state has provided any information
to clarify the whereabouts of the victim in any of these cases.35 It
is likely that in virtually all of the cases of "disappearances" in
Kashmir, the victim was executed and the body disposed of in secret
***********************************************
Extrajudicial Executions in Doda
Since the conflict began in 1989, Indian forces in Kashmir have
routinely and systematically detained and executed men suspected of
being members or supporters of armed militant groups. There are no
known figures for the number of such killings, but in the decade since
the conflict began, they number at least several thousand. In the
early years of the conflict, human rights activists attempted to
compile statistics on the detentions and killings, but their work was
generally limited to the larger towns and cities. By 1994, most human
rights documentation ceased after several prominent human rights
defenders were killed and others were threatened. Since then, a few
human rights lawyers have continued to compile statistics on the
killings. Though incomplete, their documentation indicates that there
has been no change in the government's policy or practice in this
regard. "Custodial killings," as they are known in Kashmir, continue
to be a hallmark of the government's counterinsurgency operations.
Surinder Singh
> You conveniently forgot what mitigating factors are necessary to have
> industry like infrastructure, ports, skilled labor and raw material .
> We don't have it and IOK don't have it and then the war has chased any
> potential investor there on both sides. So Kashmir is suffering , all
> beacsue he is weak and can't force these two neighbors to leave them
> alone to decide their fate with a vote.
I think the talk of ports, skilled labor, raw materials, and infrastructure,
is not tenable. Pakistani Kashmir could easily have a knowledge based
economy. They could advance in IT, software, chip design etc. Lack of
ports should not hold them.
-s
Surinder Singh
> Army is in power due to Banyaa 's wrong policy on Kashmir. After
> Kashmir Pak army will be weakened to the point, it will never ever be
> able to grab power from politicians how corrupt they may be.
So it makes all the sense for us in india to not let kashmir go: it will
keep Army in charge and suck Pakistan to the point that Pakistan will not be
a threat to us, and in addition Kashmir will stay with us.
-s
Surinder Singh
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:46:23 -0600, "Surinder Singh"
> If that was true what you saying, majority of Muslim would have
> converted back to Hinduism in these 57 years as the Hindu government
> and all extremist Hindu parties would have helped them, bribed them to
> do that. they did not that shows, there parents converted with their
> own will,. otherwise parent to children, it must have been transferred
> that they were converted by force and go back to Hinduism as soon as
> you get a chance( 57 years of Hindu dominant government is/was a high
> time to convert back)
Dear Sayed Ji, the mass scale coerced conversion is not a recent phenomena
that the children will convert back. It has been happeing since the time
the Muslim invaders poured into India, about a 1000 years ago. Many many
generations have passed. Hindu rule is only 60 years old. It is strange
that you would not know about this well known fact. Actually, you can read
writings from the Mughal kings themselves, who talk about fiercely killing
and converting the despicable Kaafirs and breakage of their temples. I
mean this is not propaganda or fiction. The perpetrators themselves left a
pretty wide array of evidence for us to see.
> Yes equality means drinking water from the same well, buying food from
> the same grocery shop, playing together, living together. I grew up in
> Pakistan and a good friend of mine was Christian and he enjoyed all
> those opportunities we did, ended up with an MBA from Quaid-a-Azam
> university and a job in a famed international company in Pakistan.
> Dos this answer your Q ?
No it does not. You said Islam gave equality to all humans. I asked
whether it gives and beleives in equality of a Muslim (Momin) to a Kaafir
(non-Muslim). You can say yes or no to it.
> forget Pakistan, western media will not hide it if there is big
> problem. There is a problem but not to the level of Palestine, Kashmir
> or Chechnya. admit it.
Western media has not hidden it. That is how I know about the Uighur
movement. I have no secret sources. Certainly China was not advertising
it. The Muslim countries, including Pakistan, are curiousy silent about it.
It is the western nations that brought the news out. The magnitude of the
problem is identical: A Muslim nationality stuck inside a non-Muslim
country wanting to secede. A secessionist movement. Some violence to
achieve it. Some connections with Al Qaeda and some training in Afghanstan.
You can substitute in this either "Kashmir" or "Chechnya" or "Uighurs", it
is the identical story of a Muslim people struggling for independence. I
can understand Pakistan's silence for the plight of Tibetans, since they are
non-Muslim. But stony silence over Uighuristan is stunning for a nation
founded on Islam and Muslim nationhood and Muslim solidarity.
> Any proof of that. Yes there were abductions but I don't believe they
> were Uiguirs who did it
Plenty of proof if you want it. In this week's www.dawn.com magazine
section, there is an article on Xinjian and the Uigurs. A lamentable
reading of the pussilanimity of Pakistan. The article mentions Ismail
Kadir. You can do a Google search on Ismail Kadir and Uigurs and you can
easily find such information. (The spelling of the gentleman may have
variations). Actually, Chinese diplomats have been murdered in Kyrgistan
and other places by Uighurs. Chinese have asked for special security for
their diplomatic staff in India. Apparently, the Pakistani PM and
President got a very very rude toungue lashing from the Chinese after their
engineers were killed in Pakistan.
-s
syed
Ok Sunrider ssab , let's take you on your point. Everyone knows
Pakistan is trailing behind India in IT field. So if Pakistan is not
developed in IT , how come Azad kashmir will go forward as it is
dependent on Pakistani institutions and infrastructure.
Now lets see where IOK stands, and why India which is boasting it's
successes in IT field, has not helped IOK come up in this field and
improve. I don’t see any cal centers set up in IOK either.
Surrinder mian, problem is Kshmiri do not trust India at all and now
even if India try sincerely to improve their lives, after so many
killings, they will not trust India easy.
My take on Kashmiri problem, Let both India and Pakistan loose and
Kashmiris win. Civilized world (if any) owes this to them after all
what was there fault to suffer for so long and be divided into two(
just because they were weak and can’t fight with either.
Lets be civil about it and let them go their way, and frankly both
India and Pakistan should help them to be successful . We can go there
for recreation/tourism and may even have joint parties at Dal lake.
I don't see any other solution .
syed
syed
Surinder mian,
I don’t have time now to discuss this in detail but we will discuss
this in detail. To give you some food for thought, India will be a big
loser too if Pakistan melts away or chaos stay in Afghanistan . So it
is in India’s own best interest to see Pakistan, Afghanistan
prosper and all issues settled.
As I said it needs a good debate sometime later what will happen if
the fire stays smoldering, eventually it is going to erupt and
destroy all. Think neighbor think. Don’t burn in the hate fire as
Habshi and NK do. Check today's anti-Pakistan posts by Habshi,/NK . I
counted about 9-10 already. Eradication of Islam is not possible as it
may put the whole region on big fire, accommodation and resolution of
problem is the answer.
Syed
habshi
> Hindu rule is only 60 years old. I<
India -over 90% by 1700 and ruled for fifty more years till the Brits arrived and saved Islam from
being kicked out . Remember Shivaji , Ranjit Singh , Hindu dogra kings of Kashmir ?
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> No it is not. Recently there was an article by Mr. Kuldip Nayar
> .... He says this. I have read it from multple sources that
> Kashmiris in "Azaad" Kashmir are a minority. Some reports even
> put their number at approximated 20%.
>
Yes, Kuldip Nayar described "Azad Kashmir" (PoK) as Punjabi majority.
And the Kashmiri speakers in "Azad Kashmir" number
about 100,000 which is only about 2% of the population.
"Azad Kashmir", thus, has very little of Azadi and very little of
Kashmiri speakers!!
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> No it is not. Recently there was an article by Mr. Kuldip Nayar
> Kashmiris in "Azaad" Kashmir are a minority. Some reports even
> put their number at approximated 20%.
>
Yes, Kuldip Nayar did describe "Azad Kashmir" (PoK) as Punjabi
majority. And the Kashmiri speakers in "Azad Kashmir" number
about 100,000 which is about 2% (not 20%) of the population.
It needs to be noted that Kashmiri language is far less
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
>
> If the Indian oppression is so brutal as it is claimed to be, there
should
> be at least some movement of Kashmiris to their supposed beloved land
of
> Pakistan. There were refugees pouring in from Bangladesh in India in
1970.
> The Afghans came streaming into Pakistan in 1980's. Kashmiri
Pundits
> became refugees in Delhi and Jammu. If the Indian state brutality
was
> indeed as brutal, there would have been some Kashmiri Muslim
refugees.
> Since the only movement has been small and it has been to India
proper, it
> makes zero sense. One would expect that "brutally suppressed"
helpless
> would people go *away* from the source of suppression; they would not
be
> expected to migrate *to* the source of that suppression (Hindu Delhi
and
> Hindu remaining India).
>
> -s
=============================================================
The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
December 10-16, 2004
Pakistani hypocrisy
By Zia Ahmed
..... Consider the Palestinian problem, a salient arrow in every
self-righteous Pakistani liberal's repertoire. The right of return
for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to modern day Israel,
insist the upholders of justice, should be guaranteed in any final
solution. Yet mainstream opinion is silent on the analogous problem of
the Biharis: Pakistani citizens and their descendants who lead a life
of utmost squalor in Bangladeshi refugee camps. In this twisted moral
landscape, it is perfectly equitable for Israel - a nation of four
million - to absorb several million refugees, but impossible for
Pakistan to accept a few hundred thousands of its own citizens. Sadly,
other than a cursory mention by the MQM, repatriation for the Biharis
does not feature on any political party's agenda.
The right of return argument can be taken a step further. Evaluated
literally, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -
to which Pakistan, like all UN member states, is a signatory - would
guarantee the right of return to all those driven out of Pakistan
during the carnage following Partition. Given that pre-1947 Karachi was
predominantly Hindu, is this really a right that our intelligentsia -
liberal or otherwise - would insist upon? .....
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
Kashmir".
In other words, Kashmiri-speakers are just as much in short supply
in "Azad Kashmir" as is Azadi !!!
habshi wrote:
> Surinder Singh wrote:
> > No it is not. Recently there was an article by Mr. Kuldip Nayar
> > .... He says this. I have read it from multple sources that
> > Kashmiris in "Azaad" Kashmir are a minority. Some reports even
> > put their number at approximated 20%.
> >
>
> Yes, Kuldip Nayar did describe "Azad Kashmir" (PoK) as Punjabi
> majority. And the Kashmiri speakers in "Azad Kashmir" number
> It needs to be noted that Kashmiri language is far less
habshi
>Lets be civil about it and let them go their way, and frankly both
India and Pakistan should help them to be successful .<
The Hindus , Shias , Buddhists ie the majority of Kashmiris do
not 'want to go their own way'. The know the Jihadis will finish them
off . They want to stay with India
habshi
How can POK advance when the mullahs force women to wear stupid Hijabs
, stifle any creativity , kill blasphemers ?
syed
> The problem is Islam, Islam , Islam
Problem is power. You know what Mullahs say the problem is
injustice, injustice and injustice .
To me the problem is power as when Mullahs got power in Afghanistan
, they started beating people and started implementing their kind of
Islam with force. Hindu Banyaas got power and they started destroying
Muslim sacred places( you can say Muslim did the same thing but that
was thousands years ago, we should behave better now)
>How can POK advance when the mullahs force women to wear stupid Hijabs
I have seen lots of Hijabi women in America, doing very well in
America. Becoming doctors, CPA’s dentists etc etc . Hijab is not an
obstacle.
>, stifle any creativity , kill blasphemers ?
And you type idiot think, creativity, innovation all come through
nudity. I may not agree with killing people for blasphemy but why
should one practice blasphemy either. Why should one hurt someone's
feelings even if s/he may not agree with it. Live and let live should
be the motto.
syed
Habshi the problem with you is you are a paid RAW agent( writing
anti-muslim anti-Pakistani stuff on this NG for years now), who says
majority do not want to go with pakistan but when someone tells you
to let people go for a peoples mendate, then you type bigot Banyaas
run way to fast.
And that surely is the problem, if majority does not want to go with
Pakistan or wanna be independent, then why Banyaa do not agree with
pebiscite. Only two reasons are possible.
1: Either Banyaa is lying big time
or
2: Banyaa is very stupid
tell us which one is true in your opinion. .
syed
>Kashmiri-speakers are only about 2% of the population of "Azad
>Kashmir".
>In other words, Kashmiri-speakers are just as much in short supply
>in "Azad Kashmir" as is Azadi !!!
Let's assume it is true that only 2% are Kashmiris in AK and rest are
all Punjabis , Pathans or whatever. And let us also agree with you and
Habshi that IOK ( Indian occupied Kashmir) residents favor India in
many polls conducted by Indians and Western agencies.
Why then India do not go for plebiscite as all Non -Kashmiris will be
screened out by UN( Indians are not stupid , that they will let
anyone cast his vote in AK without very extensive verification) .
So India has a win win situation, then why Banyaa is not opting for
it( though it promised in front of whole world in UN),
because
India is a lying bigot. It knows as soon as the voting start, Kashmir
is either going with Pakistan or going independent( my hunch goes for
independence) Hence the banyaa bigotocrisy ( Banyaa is not stupid,
Banyaa is shrewd )
§§ Blue Ice §§
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:05:37 GMT, hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:54:34 -0500, syed <50...@highstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Lets be civil about it and let them go their way, and frankly both
>>
>>India and Pakistan should help them to be successful .<
>>
>> The Hindus , Shias , Buddhists ie the majority of Kashmiris do
>>not 'want to go their own way'. The know the Jihadis will finish them
>>off . They want to stay with India
>
>
> Habshi the problem with you is you are a paid RAW agent( writing
> anti-muslim anti-Pakistani stuff on this NG for years now), who says
> majority do not want to go with pakistan but when someone tells you
> to let people go for a peoples mendate,
mandate??? yr president and prime minister don't have *any* mandate..
and u talk abt it?
give this option to balichies, and in NWFP, and see, the shrinking size
of porkistan.
Gulshan Khan (wada Sain)
<Blue...@spamcop.gov> wrote:
>syed wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:05:37 GMT, hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:54:34 -0500, syed <50...@highstream.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lets be civil about it and let them go their way, and frankly both
>>>
>>>India and Pakistan should help them to be successful .<
>>>
>>> The Hindus , Shias , Buddhists ie the majority of Kashmiris do
>>>not 'want to go their own way'. The know the Jihadis will finish them
>>>off . They want to stay with India
>>
>>
>> Habshi the problem with you is you are a paid RAW agent( writing
>> anti-muslim anti-Pakistani stuff on this NG for years now), who says
>> majority do not want to go with pakistan but when someone tells you
>> to let people go for a peoples mendate,
>
>mandate??? yr president and prime minister don't have *any* mandate..
>and u talk abt it?
You have th emendate to do what your ancestors did for 1000 years...
lift dhoti from behind and bend over.
>
>give this option to balichies, and in NWFP, and see, the shrinking size
>of porkistan.
"balichies" Is that your pitha ji.LOL...
hare om baba hare om
Mabius
asked it to invade and occupy? Why does it appoint military generals as
'presidents' of Pak-occupied-Kashmir (pok)? Why does it use military
force to keep the baltistanis in slavery? Why does it not use
plebiscite in PoK and give the choice of independence to ALL the people
there? Why does it settle punjabis in kashmiri land? Why does it build
military bases in a desperately deprived region of Skardu and yet
prevent the natives from recourse to judicial appeal? Why does pakiland
send sunni extremists to intimidate by murder the resentful shias of
gilgit-baltistan?
Why does pakiland not allow PoK people a plebiscite and let them form
their own country or join with India?
Adi Anant
§§ Blue Ice §§
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:56:52 +0700, งง Blue Ice งง
> <Blue...@spamcop.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>syed wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:05:37 GMT, hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:54:34 -0500, syed <50...@highstream.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Lets be civil about it and let them go their way, and frankly both
>>>>
>>>>India and Pakistan should help them to be successful .<
>>>>
>>>> The Hindus , Shias , Buddhists ie the majority of Kashmiris do
>>>>not 'want to go their own way'. The know the Jihadis will finish them
>>>>off . They want to stay with India
>>>
>>>
>>>Habshi the problem with you is you are a paid RAW agent( writing
>>>anti-muslim anti-Pakistani stuff on this NG for years now), who says
>>>majority do not want to go with pakistan but when someone tells you
>>>to let people go for a peoples mendate,
>>
>>mandate??? yr president and prime minister don't have *any* mandate..
>>and u talk abt it?
>
>
> You have th emendate to do what your ancestors did for 1000 years...
> lift dhoti from behind and bend over.
>
>>give this option to balichies, and in NWFP, and see, the shrinking size
>>of porkistan.
>
>
> "balichies" Is that your pitha ji.LOL...
nope, that's yr mom's legal husband, a baluchi.
§§ Blue Ice §§
> On 14 Dec 2004 21:20:43 -0800, nkdat...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>
>
>>Kashmiri-speakers are only about 2% of the population of "Azad
>>Kashmir".
>>In other words, Kashmiri-speakers are just as much in short supply
>>in "Azad Kashmir" as is Azadi !!!
>
>
>
>
> Let's assume it is true that only 2% are Kashmiris in AK and rest are
> all Punjabis , Pathans or whatever. And let us also agree with you and
> Habshi that IOK ( Indian occupied Kashmir) residents favor India in
> many polls conducted by Indians and Western agencies.
>
> Why then India do not go for plebiscite as all Non -Kashmiris will be
> screened out by UN( Indians are not stupid , that they will let
> anyone cast his vote in AK without very extensive verification) .
why don't u have an election in the porkistan to start with, and then
give right of self-determination to the so-called azad kashmir, and then
to NWFP , and to punjab and baluchistan also.
ask beggerdesh to have a vote if they wanna go back to porkistan.
Surinder Singh
> To give you some food for thought, India will be a big
> loser too if Pakistan melts away or chaos stay in Afghanistan . So it
> is in India's own best interest to see Pakistan, Afghanistan
> prosper and all issues settled.
I hear this from politicians too, but I am not sure I get it. How would
melting chaos of Pakistan hurt India? Disintegration of USSR was not bad
for USA. Breakage of Pakistan into Bangladesh was not bad for India.
Further disentegration of Pakistan is not likely to hurt India. Maybe you
can tell us how.
-s
Surinder Singh
"Mabius" <arya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103168018.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> What the fig is pakiland doing in Kashmir anyway? Who invited it? Who
> asked it to invade and occupy? Why does it appoint military generals as
> 'presidents' of Pak-occupied-Kashmir (pok)? Why does it use military
> force to keep the baltistanis in slavery? Why does it not use
> plebiscite in PoK and give the choice of independence to ALL the people
> there? Why does it settle punjabis in kashmiri land? Why does it build
> military bases in a desperately deprived region of Skardu and yet
> prevent the natives from recourse to judicial appeal? Why does pakiland
> send sunni extremists to intimidate by murder the resentful shias of
> gilgit-baltistan?
> Why does pakiland not allow PoK people a plebiscite and let them form
> their own country or join with India?
Syed Ji,
These are not empty questions. If I may, please add my questions to the
list too:
Why did the Pakistanis not give plebiscite to Bangladeshis in 1970? Why did
Pak not give freedom to Baloochistan in 1974. Why cannot residents of NWFP
not change the name of their province to Pakhtoonistan? Why should the
Pashtoons of Afghanistan and NWFP be divided into two countries when they
are one nation? Why not settle the Durand Line problem by plebiscite? How
can a nation that does let its people choose a dog catcher preach plebiscite
to others? Why if freedom and choice is so essential, it raises not a
voice for the freedoms of Xinjiang Uighurs, the Tibetans, the Taiwanese, the
Kurds, the Durfur blacks.
-s
Surinder Singh
> Ok Sunrider ssab , let's take you on your point. Everyone knows
> Pakistan is trailing behind India in IT field. So if Pakistan is not
> developed in IT , how come Azad kashmir will go forward as it is
> dependent on Pakistani institutions and infrastructure.
>
> Now lets see where IOK stands, and why India which is boasting it's
> successes in IT field, has not helped IOK come up in this field and
> improve. I don't see any cal centers set up in IOK either.
> Surrinder mian, problem is Kshmiri do not trust India at all and now
> even if India try sincerely to improve their lives, after so many
> killings, they will not trust India easy.
At least you admit that Azaad Kashmir is no better than Indian Kashmir. Why
then Pakistan would want Indian Kashmir is not clear.
-s
Surinder Singh
> Let's assume it is true that only 2% are Kashmiris in AK and rest are
> all Punjabis , Pathans or whatever. And let us also agree with you and
> Habshi that IOK ( Indian occupied Kashmir) residents favor India in
> many polls conducted by Indians and Western agencies.
>
> Why then India do not go for plebiscite as all Non -Kashmiris will be
> screened out by UN( Indians are not stupid , that they will let
> anyone cast his vote in AK without very extensive verification) .
>
> So India has a win win situation, then why Banyaa is not opting for
> it( though it promised in front of whole world in UN),
It is a very disingenuous argument: At face value saying that for India it
is a win win, but knowing fully well that it is a loose loose. But let me
answer the question: India beleives that it got Kashmir fair and square.
It beleives that Kashmir is atoot ang. India does not feel it does not owe
any foreign entity on Kashmir issue. Inside India, it is willing to
negotiate with it like any nation negotiates with its citizens.
By the way, the idea of the plebiscite is old and dead. Even the US has
stated that those security council resolutions are old and better forgotten.
Clinton said this in his India trip and Pakistan trip. No country, except
Pakistan, is asking our supporting it. It is a waste of time.
Nothing stops Pakistan from conducting a unilateral plebiscite in PoK.
By the way, why this hatred for the entity called "Banya"?
-s
Surinder Singh
<nkdat...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:1103088043.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Kashmiri-speakers are only about 2% of the population of "Azad
> Kashmir".
> In other words, Kashmiri-speakers are just as much in short supply
> in "Azad Kashmir" as is Azadi !!!
I am curious. What is the history of Azaad Kashmir demographics? How come
the Kashmiris are a miniscule minority in PoK? What were the figures in
1947? Any body know any details?
-s
Gulshan Khan (wada Sain)
<Blue...@spamcop.gov> wrote:
>Gulshan Khan (wada Sain) wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:56:52 +0700, §§ Blue Ice §§
>> <Blue...@spamcop.gov> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>syed wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:05:37 GMT, hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:54:34 -0500, syed <50...@highstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lets be civil about it and let them go their way, and frankly both
>>>>>
>>>>>India and Pakistan should help them to be successful .<
>>>>>
>>>>> The Hindus , Shias , Buddhists ie the majority of Kashmiris do
>>>>>not 'want to go their own way'. The know the Jihadis will finish them
>>>>>off . They want to stay with India
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Habshi the problem with you is you are a paid RAW agent( writing
>>>>anti-muslim anti-Pakistani stuff on this NG for years now), who says
>>>>majority do not want to go with pakistan but when someone tells you
>>>>to let people go for a peoples mendate,
>>>
>>>mandate??? yr president and prime minister don't have *any* mandate..
>>>and u talk abt it?
>>
>>
>> You have th emendate to do what your ancestors did for 1000 years...
>> lift dhoti from behind and bend over.
>>
>>>give this option to balichies, and in NWFP, and see, the shrinking size
>>>of porkistan.
>>
>>
>> "balichies" Is that your pitha ji.LOL...
>
>
>nope, that's yr mom's legal husband, a baluchi.
The "balichie" nation must be your mathas clients.. :rotfl:
Romanise
Those who migrated to what is left of Pakistan hate banya.
In the east there were brahmin jagirdars.
West of Bengal many muslim jagirdars must have lost their jagirs to
borrowings from banyas.
Banyas worked hard while jagirdars kept themselves busy in aiyaashi and
the rest.
Muslims, the blue blooded ones, cant give up on the idea that all hard
working humans are for them to rule and loot.
Romanise
hate brahmins while those who converted from higher castes of Hindus
hate banyas, poste Syed being exception. His intense jealousy of
shudras and his anger towards his forfathers for converting is evident.
He certainly would have liked to enjoy the fruits of Ambedkar's
constitution and indefinitely extended period of benefits that
scheduled Castes are going to reap in India.
habshi
you dare not read !) . Kick Islam out of politics and make the laws
secular and they lose their power . So again the blame is Islam ,
Islam , Islam.
habshi
Baltistan , Gilgit , Sindh , NWFP , Baluchistan . Why can Muslims
always lecture and demand from others what they wont do themselves?
Jinnah promised Hindus freedom and equality and within six
months he set the tribals on them and slaughtered and drove them out
of Pakistan , and later Bangladesh in 71.
Hindus , Shias , Buddhists and moderate Muslims of Kashmir are
too wise to trust Pakistan and Islam . They prefer to stay with India
and the proof is that 61% of them in a Mori poll three years ago
wanted to stay with India , 6% go with pakistan and the rest didnt
know .
habshi
part of Kashmir and Baltistan and Gilgit under UN supervision and
limited to the original inhabitants and their descendants .
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> "syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
> news:d2t1s0tqjnsm8rqao...@4ax.com...
>
>
> -s
That's indeed somewhat puzzling.
"Banya", as is apparent from the etymology of the
word, refers to those that make a living as
businessmen. And, Mr. Syed, by his own admission,
makes his living as a businessman. Ergo, Mr. Syed
is a Banya. So why this constant Communist-like
posturing against Banyas?! Is Mr. Syed trying to
be a Banya in Communist-clothing?
Business people in the subcontinent indeed have an
image problem. But the transparency international
has always ranked Pakistan more corrupt than India.
Ergo, there is far more corruption among the banyas
in Pakistan (especially among Pakistan's Banya
soldiers, in general, and among Pakistan's Banya
Generals, in particular).
So, whenever Mr. Syed (even though he himself is a
Banya) has this uncontollable urge to express contempt
for the corrupt "Banyas", he has far more reason to
direct his contempt toward the Banyas in the Pakistan
Army which 33 years ago to date had squandered away
half the country in its zeal to retain its thieving
ways. And to this day, this corrupt army retains an
iron grip in Pakistan's most profitable business of
drug peddling and gun-running.
================================================================================
http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html
Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2004
Ranking Country CPI Score
1 Finland 9.7
17 USA 7.5
59 Brazil 3.9
67 Sri Lanka 3.5
71 China 3.4
90 India 2.8
90 Nepal 2.8
129 Pakistan 2.1
145 Bangladesh 1.5
================================================================================
syed
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:d2t1s0tqjnsm8rqao...@4ax.com...
>
>> Let's assume it is true that only 2% are Kashmiris in AK and rest are
>> all Punjabis , Pathans or whatever. And let us also agree with you and
>> Habshi that IOK ( Indian occupied Kashmir) residents favor India in
>> many polls conducted by Indians and Western agencies.
>>
>> Why then India do not go for plebiscite as all Non -Kashmiris will be
>> screened out by UN( Indians are not stupid , that they will let
>> anyone cast his vote in AK without very extensive verification) .
>>
>> So India has a win win situation, then why Banyaa is not opting for
>> it( though it promised in front of whole world in UN),
>
>It is a very disingenuous argument: At face value saying that for India it
>is a win win, but knowing fully well that it is a loose loose.
Surinder how come it is loose loose situation for India. Indians like
Habshi, NK everyday about 20 on this group say that Kashmiris in
Indian occupied Kashmir will vote for India. And as for their own
calculation, there are only 2% real Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir. So why
are then Indians so scared of Plebiscite is totally insane.
> But let me
>answer the question: India beleives that it got Kashmir fair and square.
May be by bribing Mount Batton or winning a vote in some secret
ballot.
>It beleives that Kashmir is atoot ang.
Why this atoot ang is being kept atoot with force. And there are
hundreds of soldiers safe guarding each and every ang. Surinder you
are comparatively mature and a bit fair minded Indian, so don't play
the same old over played trumpet as Habshi and NK play everyday. These
poor fellows are doing their job ( they never denied it ) by
propagating disinformation and hate against Pakistan and Islam in
general , you are not like them, so don’t dance on their tunes. .
> India does not feel it does not owe
>any foreign entity on Kashmir issue.
Then why it is called disputed territory, why the border is called
LOC, why there are agreed resolutions on Kashmir in UN. Why there is a
need to have 600,000 army boots to control it. Surinder try to be fair
sometimes. You will not see me defending East Pakistan Fiasco here for
West Pakistanis (my own people), you don't see me defending
dictatorship, you don't see me defending corrupt politicians of
Pakistan. Why can't you educated Indians do the same. Why cant you
say, it is un-democratic to be obsessed to keep kashmir in Indian
fold by force. Why are you Indians hate Muslim that much but want to
keep them in India with force??
> Inside India, it is willing to
>negotiate with it like any nation negotiates with its citizens.
Negotiate under guns, with killings, with bribing etc etc. You are
not negotiating, you are prolonging the illegitimate and undemocratic
rule of India with force. Call a spade a spade sometime.
>By the way, the idea of the plebiscite is old and dead.
Why because 57 years have passed. Treaties dissolve after 57years. Are
loans forgiven ( specially by a banyaa after 57 years??? marriages
dissolve after 57 years.??? Surinder you should not think that way.
> Even the US has
>stated that those security council resolutions are old and better forgotten.
So US has the final say and if US says something, it becomes God's
word.
>Clinton said this in his India trip and Pakistan trip.
Clinton said many other things too and did many other things too.
Specially the cigar thing, are they all become Kosher now for the
whole world to follow.
>No country, except
>Pakistan, is asking our supporting it. It is a waste of time.
Persistence pays, have you ever seen even water makes a hole in
granite, if it keeps dripping at the same spot. We should always
demand justice for Kashmiris and for all irrespective of their
religion, color or else. Freedom of choice is a basic human right and
should never be compromised. Or forfeited.
>
>Nothing stops Pakistan from conducting a unilateral plebiscite in PoK.
Azad kashmir has no movement, no unrest, no 600,000 army to subdue
locals. Plus why not simulataniuosly, is there soemthing un-democratic
with that???
>
>By the way, why this hatred for the entity called "Banya"?
I use Banyaa for all Hindus in abroad term. Nothing special about it
except the way Banyaa does business. Banyaa as we were told by our
elders, is/was a creature who used to lend money to poor people/
farmers on compound interest terms and then take every little thing
they posses, specially their land( very recently many farmers
committed suicide in Tamil Nadu when their lands were confiscated by
Banyaas for not paying compound interest) and because of this compound
interest, poor peasant never gets out of Banyaa clutches.
Did you ever notice how many hate filed posts by Habshi, NK,
Romanise and assorted on this NG against pakistanis and Muslim in
general??? and did you ever tell them, stop it??? Or is it OK to
hate non-Hindus and if I call all Hindus Banyaa , is a very hateful
term.?? Just think .
>
>-s
>
Surinder Singh
> Surinder how come it is loose loose situation for India. Indians like
> Habshi, NK everyday about 20 on this group say that Kashmiris in
> Indian occupied Kashmir will vote for India. And as for their own
> calculation, there are only 2% real Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir. So why
> are then Indians so scared of Plebiscite is totally insane.
Not wanting to hold the plebiscite is not the same as being afraid of it.
The reasons for not holding plebiscite are very many, fear plays a minor
role.
>> But let me
>>answer the question: India beleives that it got Kashmir fair and square.
>
> May be by bribing Mount Batton or winning a vote in some secret
> ballot.
The rules of partition were that the king of a province decides. Maharaj
Gulab Singh opted for India and hence that is it. What is not fair and
square about it?
>>It beleives that Kashmir is atoot ang.
>
> Why this atoot ang is being kept atoot with force. And there are
> hundreds of soldiers safe guarding each and every ang.
This ang of India is under attack by foregin terrorists. The army is there
to quell them. Prior to the insurgency, the army was not there, this proves
that India did not hold on to it by force. Law and order plummetted after
the unemployed Jihadis were pumped into Kashmir by Pakistan.
> Surinder you
> are comparatively mature and a bit fair minded Indian, so don't play
> the same old over played trumpet as Habshi and NK play everyday. These
> poor fellows are doing their job ( they never denied it ) by
> propagating disinformation and hate against Pakistan and Islam in
> general , you are not like them, so don't dance on their tunes. .
Syed Ji, I do not dance to their tunes. Habshi I find abhorrent. He is
on my kill file. I do not read any of his posts. Mr. N.K. Datta, I do
read his posts as they are articles that I would not be able to access.
But I have not played to their tune. I am trying to argue, debate and
discuss what comes to my mind.
>> India does not feel it does not owe
>>any foreign entity on Kashmir issue.
>
>
> Then why it is called disputed territory, why the border is called
> LOC, why there are agreed resolutions on Kashmir in UN. Why there is a
> need to have 600,000 army boots to control it.
According to India there is no dispute and Kashmir (entire Kashmir, in
India's opinion) belongs to India. According to India, UN resolutions have
been superceded by Simla Agreement. The number of the army you mention has
been shown to be a gross exaggeration. But beyond that the reason for
Army's presence is the foreign terrorists.
> Surinder try to be fair
> sometimes. You will not see me defending East Pakistan Fiasco here for
> West Pakistanis (my own people), you don't see me defending
> dictatorship, you don't see me defending corrupt politicians of
> Pakistan. Why can't you educated Indians do the same. Why cant you
> say, it is un-democratic to be obsessed to keep kashmir in Indian
> fold by force. Why are you Indians hate Muslim that much but want to
> keep them in India with force??
I do not hate Muslims. I know many Indians do, but I do not. There are
things about Pakistan that I find perturbing, but that is not the same as
Islam. I have never written anything against Islam or disrespected it.
>> Inside India, it is willing to
>>negotiate with it like any nation negotiates with its citizens.
>
> Negotiate under guns, with killings, with bribing etc etc. You are
> not negotiating, you are prolonging the illegitimate and undemocratic
> rule of India with force. Call a spade a spade sometime.
Actually, I am only trying to summarize India's strategy.
>>By the way, the idea of the plebiscite is old and dead.
>
> Why because 57 years have passed. Treaties dissolve after 57years. Are
> loans forgiven ( specially by a banyaa after 57 years??? marriages
> dissolve after 57 years.??? Surinder you should not think that way.
>
>> Even the US has
>>stated that those security council resolutions are old and better
>>forgotten.
>
> So US has the final say and if US says something, it becomes God's
> word.
Well in today's world US is God. If the US itself considers the UN
resolutions outdated, then pray tell me who is going to force their
implementation? Pakistan my repeat it ad infinitum, but there is no
country worth mentioning that supports it in any way. That is just how the
world is. There are piles and piles of UN resolutions on Israel, more
stringent than Kashmir resolutions. Is there any possibility of their
implementation?
>>Clinton said this in his India trip and Pakistan trip.
>
> Clinton said many other things too and did many other things too.
> Specially the cigar thing, are they all become Kosher now for the
> whole world to follow.
No they haven't. But this was not just an accidental outpour from Clinton.
It was a well thought out policy decision of the US State department in
consultation with its political and academic side. Clinton was stating the
policy that was arrived at after a lot of thought. The outcome of this is
that President Bush has not once, even once, talked about plebiscite or
mentioned any UN resolutions on Kashmir. Please tell me if he has.
>>No country, except
>>Pakistan, is asking our supporting it. It is a waste of time.
>
> Persistence pays, have you ever seen even water makes a hole in
> granite, if it keeps dripping at the same spot. We should always
> demand justice for Kashmiris and for all irrespective of their
> religion, color or else. Freedom of choice is a basic human right and
> should never be compromised. Or forfeited.
Water can make an impact, but water spends its entire life and existence on
this one singule task. Pakistan will not be able to do anything else, if
it is to focus like this water. What I mean is that yes, there is a chance
that Pakistan can win, but the cost to Pakistan is huge. Actually, saner
elements are questioning 57 years of Pakistani policy on Kashmir and its
deleterious effect on Pakistan.
You have given me another opportunity to ask you why if "Freedom of choice"
so basic, Pakistan does not wish to see this choice blossom in Xinjiang or
Tibet?
>>By the way, why this hatred for the entity called "Banya"?
>
> I use Banyaa for all Hindus in abroad term. Nothing special about it
> except the way Banyaa does business. Banyaa as we were told by our
> elders, is/was a creature who used to lend money to poor people/
> farmers on compound interest terms and then take every little thing
> they posses, specially their land
Then why the hatred for all Hindus? Actually, in pre-partition India the
Pathaan was also a money-lending class.
-s
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> > Kashmiri-speakers are only about 2% of the population of "Azad
> > Kashmir".
> > In other words, Kashmiri-speakers are just as much in short supply
> > in "Azad Kashmir" as is Azadi !!!
>
> I am curious. What is the history of Azaad Kashmir demographics?
How come
> the Kashmiris are a miniscule minority in PoK? What were the figures
in
> 1947? Any body know any details?
>
> -s
Here are some details about Pakistan, in general.
The article is by Shahid Javed Burki, a Pakistani
economist who had worked for the World Bank:
==================================================================
http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/29/op.htm#1
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
29 June 2004 Tuesday 10 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1425
Troubling historical roots
By Shahid Javed Burki
..... In 1941, the areas that were to become first West Pakistan and
later, in 1971, today's Pakistan had a population of 32.6 million
people. Of these 6.3 million or nearly one-fifth of the total were
non-Muslims.
In 1951, with an addition of two million people to the population as a
result of migration in and out of the country, the country's population
reached 39 million. Of these, the non-Muslims constituted only a tiny
proportion, 3.2 per cent. Partition and its aftermath had thoroughly
cleansed Pakistan of almost all non-Muslim population.
For instance, at the time of partition, "the Hindu-Muslim ratio of
population [in Sindh] was roughly 30:70." According to one estimate,
based on the 1951 census, only 140,000 Hindus were left, mostly in
Sindh. In other words, Sindh's Hindu population was reduced to only 1.9
per cent of the total. The same was the case in Punjab. .....
..... the post-partition transfer of population set the stage for the
pressure to Islamize Pakistani society. It also created the environment
in which Islamic extremism could throw deep roots - one of the four
problems General Musharraf says engage him the most these days.
==================================================================
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> "syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
> news:38a4s0dv6pkuljc36...@4ax.com...
>
it
> > except the way Banyaa does business. Banyaa as we were told by our
> > elders, is/was a creature who used to lend money to poor people/
> > farmers on compound interest terms and then take every little
thing
> > they posses, specially their land
>
> Then why the hatred for all Hindus? Actually, in pre-partition India
the
> Pathaan was also a money-lending class.
>
> -s
The transparency International has consistently ranked
Pakistan to be more corrupt than India, year after year.
And in Pakistan, it is the military that is the most
corrupt of them all.
The Pak military has controlled all the drug peddling and
the gun running, at least since the days of Zia-ul-Huq. And
when it comes to land-grabbing, once again it is Pakistan's
military that is in the forefront.
So if one must really express contempt for the "Banyaas",
it would be well-directed only when it is for the "Banyaa"
soldiers of Pakistan, in general, and toward Pakistan's
"Banyaa" Generals in particular.
Hindian
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:38a4s0dv6pkuljc36...@4ax.com...
>
>> Surinder how come it is loose loose situation for India. Indians like
>> Habshi, NK everyday about 20 on this group say that Kashmiris in
>> Indian occupied Kashmir will vote for India. And as for their own
>> calculation, there are only 2% real Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir. So why
>> are then Indians so scared of Plebiscite is totally insane.
>
>Not wanting to hold the plebiscite is not the same as being afraid of it.
>The reasons for not holding plebiscite are very many, fear plays a minor
>role.
not least of which is the pakistani side of kashmir has been flooded
by punjabis and other foreign terrorists.
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
Why does Pakistan's ruling elite (especially its military)
insist on a plebiscite, something that has been disavowed
even by the UN Secretary General? After all, There is
absolutely nothing in the history of Pakistan to suggest that
its ruling cabal care anymore for the freedom of Kashmiris
in lands beyond its control than they care for the freedom
of people who live in the territory under its control. The
erstwhile province of East Pakistani had to pay a very heavy
price for its freedom and Balochistan certainly hasn't
earned freedom inspite of the price it had paid.
In fact, Pakistan's military "Banyaa" is having a whole set
of "laws" enacted so that it remains the ultimate arbiter
of who gets to steal in Pakistan and how much! It has no
intention of letting Pakistanis have any freedom in the
choice of their government. Pakistan has a tradition of
military dictatorship. And that is exactly what the
current dictator is bent on perpetuating.
Why then is it barking about plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir?
It is doing so because it sees plebiscite as an opportunity
to preach that it is un-Islamic for Kashmir's Muslims to
coexist with infidels. It is doing so with the unholy goal
of imposing PoK's religious homogeneity on the rest of the
erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir as well.
This is a win-win proposition for Pakistan's ruling cabal.
The percentage of infidels in today's Pakistan is an
insignificant fraction of what it used to be in pre-1947
days. But India still has a significant Muslim population.
Naturally, Pakistan's ruling oligarchy relishes the idea of
preaching (under the guise of plebiscite) that Kashmir's
Muslims have a religious obligation to turn their backs on
Kashmiriyat's eclectic tradition of religious pluralism.
This is very much in the nefarious tradition of Pakistan
as has been attested in the following article by Shahid
Javed Burki, a World Bank economist from Pakistan:
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
[As a doctrine of expansion and conquest jihad will never again get
the free hand which it enjoyed for a few hundred years after the
advent of Islam. It is time to stop dreaming impossible dreams because
they have invariably proved to be delusions]
Daily Times, Pakistan
Thursday, January 01, 2004
Learning To Live In Peace
By Ishtiaq Ahmed
Ishtiaq.Ah...@statsvet.su.se
..... In 1956 when I was only nine years old the khaksars had put up a
camp on the outskirts of our locality of Mozang, in Lahore, inviting
volunteers to join a jihad against India. We were to march on towards
the Wagah border and keep going until we reached Delhi's Red Fort,
where we were to unfurl the Pakistani flag from the rampart and thus
declare the victory of Islam over kufr.
I remember being deeply moved by the demagoguery and wanting to go on
that long march but was left behind because of my tender age. The
khaksars, true to their salt, marched to the Wagah border where the
Pakistani authorities quickly dispersed them and they returned home in
a triumphant mood. They were garlanded and praised as if they had
really returned victorious from battle. I suppose everyone enjoyed
that charade.
Now, the khaksars were devoted but simple folk. The supreme leader of
the khaksars was Allama Inayatullah Mashraqi, a mathematics wizard
with a degree from Cambridge, whose politics was prone to quixotic
acts of bravado. The classic khaksar tale also dates back to 1956. The
Suez Canal dispute had erupted into a war and Egypt was attacked by
French, British, and Israeli units. Anti-imperialist Third World
leaders strongly condemned the attack but our prime minister, Hussain
Shaheed Suhrawardy when asked to explain why Pakistan was not
supporting the Arabs made the notorious remark ?Zero plus zero is
equal to zero'.
This greatly angered the people of Pakistan and not surprisingly a
group of khaksars dressed in khaki, carrying spades on their shoulders
and kaffans [the shroud Muslims are buried in] tied around their
heads, went marching down the Mall Road in the direction of Gol Bagh.
The poet Zaheer Kashmiri was among the spectators watching them.
Zaheer could not resist asking the leaders loudly: "Where are you all
heading, great leader of the mujahids?"
He replied, "We are marching to the Suez Canal to fight the infidels."
Zaheer remarked, "Are you going to walk all the way to the Suez
Canal?" "Yes," answered the leader of the khaksars with great
emphasis. "Then, please, take the turn to Beadon Road. It is a
short-cut and you will reach the Suez Canal more quickly," advised
Zaheer Kashmiri.
Things have indeed moved far ahead and although we still have a
problem marching on to Delhi or to the Suez Canal, such a mindset is
no longer confined to tiny groups of simpletons. At least since the
time of the Afghan war of the 1980s Pakistani society has increasingly
been brutalised with huge dozes of jihadi propaganda about conquest,
violence and expansionism. .....
..... A few months before 9/11 a Swedish student wanted to write her
research paper on the Kashmir Dispute and approached me for advice.
She collected information from the JKLF and Indian sources rather
easily from the Internet, but I wanted her to look at the Pakistani
position too so that a balanced and scientifically valid study could
take place. Upon my suggestion, she scanned some websites to learn the
official Pakistani position. While working through various Internet
links she reached the website of the Laskhar-e-Toyba, accessing some
of their statements. This I thought was very good because all sides
and angles of the problem needed to be included.
Five weeks later when she presented the first draft she pointed out
that whenever she opened the website of the Laskhare-e-Toyba a chill
ran down her spine. At the top of their homepage were Quranic verses
stating ?In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful'. Blood
seem to drip all over the screen, and the only news given everyday was
the number of Indian soldiers and Hindus killed in Kashmir and
elsewhere. She could not understand how one could talk about God's
mercy but report with relish the deaths of non-Muslims every time.
I found her observation quite embarrassing and forthwith wrote to the
Laskhar-e-Toyba beseeching them either to remove the Quranic verses
from their homepage or get rid of the ?blood' and report the killing
of Indian soldiers and Hindus less crudely. I never received any
reply. The student who had originally entertained a great deal of
sympathy for the Kashmiris wrote in her conclusion that Pakistan was
being used as a base for mounting terrorist attacks in
Indian-administered Kashmir. .....
[The author, Ishtiaq Ahmed is an associate professor of Political
Science at Stockholm University]
================================================================================
§§ Blue Ice §§
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:45:47 -0600, "Surinder Singh"
> <com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>>news:d2t1s0tqjnsm8rqao...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>Let's assume it is true that only 2% are Kashmiris in AK and rest are
>>>all Punjabis , Pathans or whatever. And let us also agree with you and
>>>Habshi that IOK ( Indian occupied Kashmir) residents favor India in
>>>many polls conducted by Indians and Western agencies.
>>>
>>>Why then India do not go for plebiscite as all Non -Kashmiris will be
>>>screened out by UN( Indians are not stupid , that they will let
>>>anyone cast his vote in AK without very extensive verification) .
>>>
>>>So India has a win win situation, then why Banyaa is not opting for
>>>it( though it promised in front of whole world in UN),
>>
>>It is a very disingenuous argument: At face value saying that for India it
>>is a win win, but knowing fully well that it is a loose loose.
>
>
> Surinder how come it is loose loose situation for India. Indians like
> Habshi, NK everyday about 20 on this group say that Kashmiris in
> Indian occupied Kashmir will vote for India. And as for their own
> calculation, there are only 2% real Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir. So why
> are then Indians so scared of Plebiscite is totally insane.
>
>
>> But let me
>>answer the question: India beleives that it got Kashmir fair and square.
>
>
> May be by bribing Mount Batton or winning a vote in some secret
> ballot.
No, by getting a signed document from the erstwhile ruler of Kashmir,
Raja Hari Singh.
>
>
>
>>It beleives that Kashmir is atoot ang.
>
>
> Why this atoot ang is being kept atoot with force. And there are
> hundreds of soldiers safe guarding each and every ang. Surinder you
> are comparatively mature and a bit fair minded Indian, so don't play
> the same old over played trumpet as Habshi and NK play everyday. These
> poor fellows are doing their job ( they never denied it ) by
> propagating disinformation and hate against Pakistan and Islam in
> general , you are not like them, so don’t dance on their tunes. .
So, u r like a surgon who prescribe ampulation if something is wrong in
the body. Well, since u r fresh from it (1971), its yr bitterself who
says these things. If there is any problem in Baluchistan or Punjab or
NWFP, will u recommand the same thing?
BTW, when was the last time u had a *democratic* *civilian* govt?
>
>
>
>>India does not feel it does not owe
>>any foreign entity on Kashmir issue.
>
>
>
> Then why it is called disputed territory, why the border is called
> LOC, why there are agreed resolutions on Kashmir in UN. Why there is a
> need to have 600,000 army boots to control it. Surinder try to be fair
> sometimes. You will not see me defending East Pakistan Fiasco here for
> West Pakistanis (my own people), you don't see me defending
> dictatorship, you don't see me defending corrupt politicians of
> Pakistan. Why can't you educated Indians do the same. Why cant you
> say, it is un-democratic to be obsessed to keep kashmir in Indian
> fold by force. Why are you Indians hate Muslim that much but want to
> keep them in India with force??
>
The dispute is the area currently occupied by Pakistan and the area
ceeded by Pakistan to China.
>
>>Inside India, it is willing to
>>negotiate with it like any nation negotiates with its citizens.
>
>
> Negotiate under guns, with killings, with bribing etc etc. You are
> not negotiating, you are prolonging the illegitimate and undemocratic
> rule of India with force. Call a spade a spade sometime.
Yes, negotiate under the guns, supplied by Pakistan. Admit it, if you
turn off these terrorists, then they are gonna turn on u immediately.
So, even if u want to u can't stop them.
>
>
>
>>By the way, the idea of the plebiscite is old and dead.
>
>
> Why because 57 years have passed. Treaties dissolve after 57years. Are
> loans forgiven ( specially by a banyaa after 57 years??? marriages
> dissolve after 57 years.??? Surinder you should not think that way.
>
>
>
>>Even the US has
>>stated that those security council resolutions are old and better forgotten.
>
>
> So US has the final say and if US says something, it becomes God's
> word.
>
>
>>Clinton said this in his India trip and Pakistan trip.
>
>
> Clinton said many other things too and did many other things too.
> Specially the cigar thing, are they all become Kosher now for the
> whole world to follow.
Noone is saying that, but when Colin Powell say in a press conference
that I called on Gen. Mushy and asked him 3 times that *are u with us or
against us?* , and gen. mushy said, *sir, i'm with u* . Where was the
strategic depth that u ppl were searching in yr *backyard* , where was
the muslim brotherhood, where were the promises that pakistan will never
*abandon* Afghanistan, do u still remember that Pakistan was the only
country in the world which *recognized* the taliban govt?
Well, I think that that call form US was much more important and
influential than a call form allah.
>
>
>>No country, except
>>Pakistan, is asking our supporting it. It is a waste of time.
>
>
> Persistence pays, have you ever seen even water makes a hole in
> granite, if it keeps dripping at the same spot. We should always
> demand justice for Kashmiris and for all irrespective of their
> religion, color or else. Freedom of choice is a basic human right and
> should never be compromised. Or forfeited.
>
>
>>Nothing stops Pakistan from conducting a unilateral plebiscite in PoK.
>
>
> Azad kashmir has no movement, no unrest, no 600,000 army to subdue
> locals. Plus why not simulataniuosly, is there soemthing un-democratic
> with that???
"Azad Kashmir" has nothing, it is still preserved as what it was like in
1947, no progress.
>
>
>>By the way, why this hatred for the entity called "Banya"?
>
>
> I use Banyaa for all Hindus in abroad term. Nothing special about it
> except the way Banyaa does business. Banyaa as we were told by our
> elders, is/was a creature who used to lend money to poor people/
> farmers on compound interest terms and then take every little thing
> they posses, specially their land( very recently many farmers
> committed suicide in Tamil Nadu when their lands were confiscated by
> Banyaas for not paying compound interest) and because of this compound
> interest, poor peasant never gets out of Banyaa clutches.
I use mulla for all the mullas from pakistan. nothing special about it,
except the way that mulla lives. Mullas , as we were told, and had also
seen sometimes, are a dirty , filthy creatures, who know nothing about
humanity, who want to only fight the holy wars around the world, and
consume ganza. Killing each other in the name of religion, buring ppl
who are travelling in trains. destroying the ancient places like Bamiyan
in afghanistan, fighting a cowardly battle by killing innocent
civilians. the list is too long.
>
> Did you ever notice how many hate filed posts by Habshi, NK,
> Romanise and assorted on this NG against pakistanis and Muslim in
> general??? and did you ever tell them, stop it??? Or is it OK to
> hate non-Hindus and if I call all Hindus Banyaa , is a very hateful
> term.?? Just think .
I'll tell you one simple thing, I've got some muslim friends, but they
are not like the paki muslims, they themselves say that it is pakistan
bcoz of whom the image of muslims is tranished in india. So, do u really
want to spread the islamic brotherhood and cause problems for yr
brothers. mind yr own business and no one will bother you.
>
>
>>-s
>>
>
>
>
>
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
I have never posted anything against the common man
in Pakistan or against his religion. My posts are quite
in keeping with the sentiments of Pakistan's thoughtful
writers and journalists who have Pakistan's interest in
their hearts.
If Mr. Syed were truly for the landless peasants as per
his claim, he would have found interest in my posts. That
he is displeased merely goes to show where his sympathies
lie - they are really with Pakistan's ruling class rather
than with Pakistan's long suffering disenfranchised
citizens.
> and did you ever tell them, stop it??? Or is it OK to
> hate non-Hindus and if I call all Hindus Banyaa , is a very hateful
> term.?? Just think .
>
That's pure subterfuge. "Banyaa" for Mr. Syed
is nothing less his pet epithet for spouting
hatred and bigotry. If sympathy for poor landless
peasants were indeed Mr. Syed's motivation he
would have found far more to complain about the
"Banyaas" in Pakistan.
Pakistani journalist M.B.Naqvi (see appended article)
has pointed out how feudalism in West Pakistan led to
East pakistan's estrangement right from the days of
Jinnah.
Another Pakistani journalist, Sultan Ahmed wrote
very pointedly (see excerpt appended below):
"What that means is that feudalism is safe and sound
in Pakistan, while it has vanished from the rest of
South Asia, including India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka."
Pakistan is lagging far behind other South Asian countries
in land reform. It is a country where the land-grabbing
army generals and the waderas not just flourish but go
from strength to strength even in the 21st century.
=================================================================================
www.jang.com.pk/thenews
The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday December 11, 2002-- Shawwal 06, 1423 A.H.
Why Jinnah's Pakistan ended
by M B Naqvi
mbna...@cyber.net.pk
..... One emphasises a narrower reason for the earliest power struggle
between the Punjab and Bengal Groups in the first Constituent Assembly
in 1948-49. East Bengalis had opened their account with the
expropriation of all intermediary landed interests between the state
and the cultivator. This without compensation reform frightened the
social elites in West Pakistan, almost all of whom landlords. Bengalis
acquiring the central power seemed to them like encouraging the new
Bolsheviks to repeat that enormity here also. So they were determined
to deny the Bengalis their due share of power and entered into an open
conspiracy: they sought help from the bureaucracy and got it. With
West Pakistan's landowning MPs help, they cornered all power.....
=================================================================================
http://www.dawn.com/2003/03/20/op.htm#2
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
20 March 2003 Thursday 16 Muharram 1424
No land reforms any more!
By Sultan Ahmed
Ex-Prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did not say so that openly, while
sustaining feudalism in reality but Mir Zafarullah Jamali has said
categorically there will be no land reforms under his government.
Simultaneously he has said, rather inexplicably the days of big
landholdings are over. And he has asked the landowners to extend their
cultivation without fear or hesitation which could mean larger farms
than they have now.
What that means is that feudalism is safe and sound in Pakistan, while
it has vanished from the rest of South Asia, including India,
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. And that is almost inevitable when a
landholder like Mir Zafarullah Jamali is the prime minister, Ali
Mohammad Maher is chief minister of Sindh, Jam Yousuf is C.M. of
Balochistan and Chaudhri Pervaiz Elahi is the C.M. of Punjab.
Feudal lords are packing the parliament and provincial assemblies. And
if the pre-condition of being a graduate kept some of the feudal lords
from the assemblies, their sons, nephews and brothers have taken their
seats and their nieces and daughters have added to the number to the
greater glory of their families.
What is striking is the manner in which the newspapers have treated the
PM statement that there will be no more any land reforms. It has been
presented as a kind of no-news with hardly any headlines as if they had
not expected any change from the present or immediate past.
And that is because land reforms of the past, including those of Ayub
Khan and Z.A. Bhutto have been too partial, if not a sham. The clever
landlords got the better of both the reforms. While the reforms
prescribed the maximum land holding for each landlord they quickly
divided the land among the many members of their large family and in
some cases got some of the land registered in the names of their
servants or benami owners. The Haris got some of the barren or
uncultivable land. As a result Ali Mohammad Maher is said to be owning
80,000 acres of land in Sindh and finds the large chief minister's
house too small for him.
So a Balochistan opposition leader Kachkol Ali Baloch says while Gen
Pervez Musharraf had promised to do away with feudalism when he had
assumed his office, prime minister Jamali has promised to sustain and
strengthen feudalism. Prime ministers and chief ministers since the
days of Z.A. Bhutto took certain steps to deal with the wrath of the
farmers. They distributed government land, particularly in Punjab and
Sindh, to the landless farmers and gave them small loans as well.
Chaudhri Pervaiz Elahi has now ordered distribution of 1,00,000 acres
of land in 24 districts of the Punjab to the landless farmers at 12.5
acres per farmer by June 30. He has also directed the local government
secretary to prepare a report within a week to distribute Katchi Abadis
to the poor in cities. Benazir Bhutto does not take her father's land
reforms as lightly as his critics did. She says her family lost several
hundred acres of land.
A serious challenge to land reforms has come in recent years in the
form of the move for corporate farming. Such farms could be very large
in size and be owned by many, including foreign companies. When they
are permitted, they can include cattle farming and dairy farming checks
on large landholding by others becomes a debatable issue in such a
context.
At the time of Ayub Khan's land reforms, too, very large farms in the
shape of shikargahs and orchards were permitted. Some of them were
diverted for normal farming later.
A new kind of large farms came to be developed later. Mr Mustafa Khar
says he bought 350 acres of land at Rs 4000 per acre and developed that
into a big farm. As minister for water and power he could ask WAPDA to
run a canal into his farm belt and then electrify the area. Land prices
shot up, and he was reported to have sold some of the area at far
higher prices.
With modern farming machinery coming into vogue, big farmers find it
profitable to buy land and obtain higher yields and larger profit. The
realization has also dawned among the rich modern farmers that if they
have to improve the productivity of the farms, corporate farming is
imperative with the use of advanced techniques. If we need clean cotton
and disease-resistant cotton to export and earn far more we need
corporate farming with its large capital. Farmers also need better
storage facilities and efficient transport equipment.
But the unfortunate fact is that while there is talk of corporate
farming, co-operative farming has made little headway. The co-operative
movement has a tragic history in Pakistan. That has been exploited by
the land owners or other vested interests as the extensive co-operative
scam highlighted.
The small farmers do not have the strength and resilience to organise
themselves even in the better developed areas of Punjab, not to talk of
the less developed areas of Sindh with the dominance of feudal lords.
When the big farms and corporate farming are permitted the issue of the
rights of the farm workers will come to the fore. Their rights need to
be protected instead of more of them being allowed to become bonded
labour. Will the feudal lords permit farmers' unions along with minimum
wage or wages per hour of work? Will their over-time too be regulated
in the harvesting season? And when corporate farming comes into vogue,
will the workers be given shares and enabled to enjoy profit sharing?
Of course, effective crop insurance has to be a part of the new
agricultural set-up so that the interests of both the farmers and
workers are safeguarded. The scheme may have its initial missteps, but
can succeed at the end.
There is more to feudalism than large farms and under nourished workers
or bonded labour. The opposition of the feudal lords to the opening of
schools in their areas or even extending rural credit direct to the
farmers are some of the ugly features of feudalism. Above all,
feudalism is a rigid mindset or a set of ancient values which hold down
society and promote pervasive waste. The feudal mindset is pervasive in
the urban areas as well.
Today it is not the old feudal lords and their family members alone who
have the feudal mindset. Because of the status and profit which large
landholding ensures, senior civilian officials have come to own lands.
The generals and other senior military officials have vast lands.
Together the trinity sustains and strengthens feudalism and it uses
that as a springboard to political powers. So the industrialists, too,
acquire vast tracts of lands, and now they are talking of corporate
farming on the lines of what they have seen in Australia or Canada.
They are encouraged further in wanting to adopt such a course because
of the higher importance given to agriculture now by the government and
the economic planners. They are also confident of getting larger loans
for modern farming bolstered by crop insurance. The fall in interest
rates, particularly for agriculture, encourage them further.
The farmlords feel assured that more and more water will be available
for cultivation from the numerous small or medium sized dams proposed
by Gen. Musharraf. Work on many dams has started. Some of them are
hoping to rely on electric power generated by them, including through
wind and solar energy.
A major deterrent to some of them is the worsening law and order. They
want to see distinct improvement in that soon.
Unlike the traditional farmers, they also want to set up agro-based
industries close to their farms. Small and medium industrial units in
their areas can also improve their profitability.
We need more productive farms and richer farming areas for a variety of
economic reasons. Rural employment can reduce the rush to the cities
and leave us with small katchi abadis. If the rural folks are educated
and they stay in the villages, they can reduce their feudal power and
make a contribution to the development of democracy. Clearly, if the
feudal lords are to be given a free hand in the area of land ownership,
the rights of the workers in the rural areas should be protected. And
the rights of the people should be protected from the political
dominance of the feudal lords.
We need a balance between the two forces so that a healthy economic and
political order develops. Feudalism should be seen in all its
dimensions instead of a simplistic approach being adopted to it. An
institution which has developed or degenerated over the years does not
surrender its multiple hold too easily.
The people are aware of that. The rulers, though feudal, have to become
aware of that now and come up with the right remedies. The last bastion
of feudalism in South Asia should be reformed, made less offensive to
its people and more productive. That can happen only if civil society
becomes more alive to its hazards if allowed to go its own way ad
develop new tentacles to add to the old.
The political power of feudalism will add to its economic and social
power and the economic power would bolster its political strength.
Hence the attempts at the diminution of its power and prestige should
be at every level instead of those in the cities leaving the masses in
the villages at the mercy of their feudal lords and trying to copy some
of their ugly features and inflict the same on their far less fortunate
brethren.
=================================================================================
syed
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:s0evr0tb08ue5178i...@4ax.com...
>
>> To give you some food for thought, India will be a big
>> loser too if Pakistan melts away or chaos stay in Afghanistan . So it
>> is in India's own best interest to see Pakistan, Afghanistan
>> prosper and all issues settled.
>
>I hear this from politicians too, but I am not sure I get it. How would
>melting chaos of Pakistan hurt India?
OK say for instance Indian succeed in dismembering Pakistan (I hope
that day never come) or in a war defeating Pakistan( my guess this
time around both will be loosers) then just like America trying to
control Iraq, India has to bring discipline in al of Pakistan .
Dissident groups of hard core and Jihadi Pakistanis will never
surrender and a guerilla war will go on for ever with supply lines set
through Afghanistan, Iran to Central Asia and to Middle East with
inexhaustible supply of Jihadis and supplies plus the dissident and
bitter Muslim groups of India in unison with all the Pakistani and
other Muslim will make Hindu life very miserable( this is just a
prediction though I don’t have any claim of being certified jutishi
like India has in thousands but never ever could predict anything
like Indira's murder, Bhopal fiasco, tragic earth quakes etc etc. But
still marriages will only take place when blessed date will be given
by these jutishies ( isn‘t that ironic) sorry I got off the topic .
> Disintegration of USSR was not bad
>for USA.
Or Russia so separation of Kashmir will not be bad for India. In
fact it might save Indian & Kashmiri lives and money India has to
spend to keep Kashmir in India. Same money can be spent on poverty
reduction in India and infrastructure improvement.
> Breakage of Pakistan into Bangladesh was not bad for India.
Really, Kashmir problem sprung out of that example set by India. IF
India can incite East Pakistanis to a separate country, Kashmir was on
the UN notice board much before that.
>Further disentegration of Pakistan is not likely to hurt India. Maybe you
>can tell us how.
I did in the first paragraph.
regards,
syed
Surinder Singh
>>I hear this from politicians too, but I am not sure I get it. How would
>>melting chaos of Pakistan hurt India?
>
> OK say for instance Indian succeed in dismembering Pakistan (I hope
> that day never come) or in a war defeating Pakistan( my guess this
> time around both will be loosers) then just like America trying to
> control Iraq, India has to bring discipline in al of Pakistan .
> Dissident groups of hard core and Jihadi Pakistanis will never
> surrender and a guerilla war will go on for ever with supply lines set
> through Afghanistan, Iran to Central Asia and to Middle East with
> inexhaustible supply of Jihadis and supplies plus the dissident and
> bitter Muslim groups of India in unison with all the Pakistani and
> other Muslim will make Hindu life very miserable
You have presented ONE scenario of Pakistan's defeat that will hurt India.
But that is hardly a likely scenario. Pakistan is more likely to go haywire
due to its own internal contradictions. India need not be militarily
involved inside Pakistan. In that situation, as long as India protects
itself from the refugee onslought, it is fine. That is not that hurtful
scenario.
>
>> Disintegration of USSR was not bad
>>for USA.
>
> Or Russia so separation of Kashmir will not be bad for India. In
> fact it might save Indian & Kashmiri lives and money India has to
> spend to keep Kashmir in India. Same money can be spent on poverty
> reduction in India and infrastructure improvement.
You are changing the topic. Topic is how the disentagration of a country
affects its competitor. I am giving an analogous example by pointing out
that USA did not get hurt by USSR's disentegration.
>> Breakage of Pakistan into Bangladesh was not bad for India.
>
> Really, Kashmir problem sprung out of that example set by India. IF
> India can incite East Pakistanis to a separate country, Kashmir was on
> the UN notice board much before that.
What are you really saying? One hand you say that Kashmir problem sprung out
of India's intervention in BD. Then you go ahead and say that Kashmir was
on UN notice board much before that. What is it?
In case you are arguing the former, then I would disagree with you.
Pakistan was obsessed with Kashmir regardless of Indian action in BD. If
one breakage of Pakistan has not hurt India, I do not see how more breakages
will.
-s
Surinder Singh
<nkdat...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:1103268648.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Here are some details about Pakistan, in general.
> The article is by Shahid Javed Burki, a Pakistani
> economist who had worked for the World Bank:
>
> ==================================================================
> http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/29/op.htm#1
>
This article does not shed light on how the demographic shift happened in
PoK.
-s
§§ Blue Ice §§
pakistan is obsessed as it has nothing else to do.
the moment they stop these jihadies, these very jihadies will screw
pakistan.
>
> -s
>
>
syed
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:38a4s0dv6pkuljc36...@4ax.com...
>
>> Surinder how come it is loose loose situation for India. Indians like
>> Habshi, NK everyday about 20 on this group say that Kashmiris in
>> Indian occupied Kashmir will vote for India. And as for their own
>> calculation, there are only 2% real Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir. So why
>> are then Indians so scared of Plebiscite is totally insane.
>
>Not wanting to hold the plebiscite is not the same as being afraid of it.
>The reasons for not holding plebiscite are very many, fear plays a minor
>role.
Mind telling us those very many reasons. may be we agree with them.
>>> But let me
>>>answer the question: India beleives that it got Kashmir fair and square.
>>
>> May be by bribing Mount Batton or winning a vote in some secret
>> ballot.
>
>The rules of partition were that the king of a province decides. Maharaj
>Gulab Singh opted for India and hence that is it. What is not fair and
>square about it?
Nothings as he was a dictator and has no right to did that without the
vote of his people. India split was with a vote . Kashmir was a part
of India and it's faith should also have been decided with the same
principal. What happened to Hydrabad Dekkan and Juan Garh then.
Rulers opted for Pakistan but India used force to keep them in India.
Totally against your logic above.
>>>It beleives that Kashmir is atoot ang.
>>
>> Why this atoot ang is being kept atoot with force. And there are
>> hundreds of soldiers safe guarding each and every ang.
>
>This ang of India is under attack by foregin terrorists.
No sometimes " angs" of a body also rebel against the main body and
separate. Indian history will reveal there never was any atoot ang in
the Indian body . Every Nizam, Nawab, raja, Mahraja and evena Rani has
her own ang pulsating at her own " tarung" . That is history of India
before Moguls came . So this atoot ang theory does not really hold any
water.
> The army is there
>to quell them.
Pakistani army did the same thing in East Pakistan and it was all
wrong. Now Indian army is doing that in Kashmir and this is all right.
Power corrupts Surinder jee.
> Prior to the insurgency, the army was not there,
Prior to 1971 Pkaistni army was not killing Bengalis either.
>this proves
>that India did not hold on to it by force.
Same goes true for Pakistani army too then.
>Law and order plummetted after
>the unemployed Jihadis were pumped into Kashmir by Pakistan.
Same goes for East Pakistan when Indian army instigated Mukti Bahni
and pumped money and trained Indian soldiers under the guise of
Bengalis.
>
>> Surinder you
>> are comparatively mature and a bit fair minded Indian, so don't play
>> the same old over played trumpet as Habshi and NK play everyday. These
>> poor fellows are doing their job ( they never denied it ) by
>> propagating disinformation and hate against Pakistan and Islam in
>> general , you are not like them, so don't dance on their tunes. .
>
>Syed Ji, I do not dance to their tunes. Habshi I find abhorrent.
Thank God at least you agree with me on Habshi phenomenon.
> He is
>on my kill file.
i read him sometimes to know what he is up to. What is his fear level
now a days.
> I do not read any of his posts.
You not missing much just assume all are anti-Muslim and
anti-Pakistani.
> Mr. N.K. Datta, I do
>read his posts as they are articles that I would not be able to access.
Well you can if you have nothing else to do .NK is like a Teevo, holds
all the anti-Pakistani posts and regurgitate ten times a week
sometimes a day even.
>But I have not played to their tune.
Thank God you are a better soul as I guessed.
> I am trying to argue, debate and
>discuss what comes to my mind.
be my guest, we are all here to pick our and others brains.
I just do it to improve my Urdu medium school English( still suffering
from that inferiority complex)
>>> India does not feel it does not owe
>>>any foreign entity on Kashmir issue.
>>
>>
>> Then why it is called disputed territory, why the border is called
>> LOC, why there are agreed resolutions on Kashmir in UN. Why there is a
>> need to have 600,000 army boots to control it.
>
>According to India there is no dispute and Kashmir (entire Kashmir, in
>India's opinion) belongs to India.
That is very un-democratic and un-ethical as India accepted the
disputed nature of Kashmir in 1947 in front of whole world.
> According to India, UN resolutions have
>been superceded by Simla Agreement.
But other party do not agree with that and victims (Kashmiri) do not
agree with that either.
>The number of the army you mention has
>been shown to be a gross exaggeration.
may be now when India army is leaving but Pakistan is still skeptical,
it may be another ploy pulled by India or it may be true as Indian
army have been worn out and had started killing their own out of
frustration.
>But beyond that the reason for
>Army's presence is the foreign terrorists.
Pakistan army used the same reason in East Pakistan.
>> Surinder try to be fair
>> sometimes. You will not see me defending East Pakistan Fiasco here for
>> West Pakistanis (my own people), you don't see me defending
>> dictatorship, you don't see me defending corrupt politicians of
>> Pakistan. Why can't you educated Indians do the same. Why cant you
>> say, it is un-democratic to be obsessed to keep kashmir in Indian
>> fold by force. Why are you Indians hate Muslim that much but want to
>> keep them in India with force??
>
>I do not hate Muslims.
Thanks you smelled better than many here.
> I know many Indians do, but I do not.
Fair enough
>There are
>things about Pakistan that I find perturbing,
Me too although I love the land I was born but certain things even I
can't stand.
>but that is not the same as
>Islam. I have never written anything against Islam or disrespected it.
Thanks again I do not like to that and like to stop picking on
Hinduism if habshi and his team start doing that . May be we can
change the climate here too as the common people of both countries ar
doing there now.
>>> Inside India, it is willing to
>>>negotiate with it like any nation negotiates with its citizens.
Well that is disputed. Kashmir do not feel part of India as Indian
Muslim feel . Indian Muslim in my opinion has resigned to the fact
that they are not Pakistani but Indian and liev their life like that
but only reacted when their life was made miserable by fanatic and
extremist Hindus like BJP goons, VHP goons, RSS goons and many many
others.
>> Negotiate under guns, with killings, with bribing etc etc. You are
>> not negotiating, you are prolonging the illegitimate and undemocratic
>> rule of India with force. Call a spade a spade sometime.
>
>Actually, I am only trying to summarize India's strategy.
>>>By the way, the idea of the plebiscite is old and dead.
>>
>> Why because 57 years have passed. Treaties dissolve after 57years. Are
>> loans forgiven ( specially by a banyaa after 57 years??? marriages
>> dissolve after 57 years.??? Surinder you should not think that way.
>>
>>> Even the US has
>>>stated that those security council resolutions are old and better
>>>forgotten.
>>
>> So US has the final say and if US says something, it becomes God's
>> word.
>
>Well in today's world US is God.
So in your opinion all claim of civility and democarcy are all false,
World still runs on "might is always right" doctrine. Rest is all
window dressing????
> If the US itself considers the UN
>resolutions outdated, then pray tell me who is going to force their
>implementation?
I agree with you here. Kofi Anann is in trouble for saying certain
things , although I believe everyone knew what kofi is doing and what
Kojo is doing.
> Pakistan my repeat it ad infinitum, but there is no
>country worth mentioning that supports it in any way. That is just how the
>world is. There are piles and piles of UN resolutions on Israel, more
>stringent than Kashmir resolutions. Is there any possibility of their
>implementation?
Why you suddenly started talking like this Surinder. are you feeling
fine??? Have you seen a shrink lately????
>>>Clinton said this in his India trip and Pakistan trip.
>>
>> Clinton said many other things too and did many other things too.
>> Specially the cigar thing, are they all become Kosher now for the
>> whole world to follow.
>
>No they haven't. But this was not just an accidental outpour from Clinton.
>It was a well thought out policy decision of the US State department in
>consultation with its political and academic side. Clinton was stating the
>policy that was arrived at after a lot of thought. The outcome of this is
>that President Bush has not once, even once, talked about plebiscite or
>mentioned any UN resolutions on Kashmir. Please tell me if he has.
I think the world and G.W. Bush all want this to be behind us. In fact
we Pakistanis also want this behind us but if India just still showed
stubbornness and suppressed it with power without an acceptable
solution to kashmiris and Pakistanis, this problem will keep simmering
for ever. The mature thing is to resolve it with some civility and
work together with Pakistan and Kashmiris to better the life of common
people in this aprt of the world. With all education, and all
greatness bravada , sub-continent is still the poorest and pathetic
part of the world.
>>>No country, except
>>>Pakistan, is asking our supporting it. It is a waste of time.
>>
>> Persistence pays, have you ever seen even water makes a hole in
>> granite, if it keeps dripping at the same spot. We should always
>> demand justice for Kashmiris and for all irrespective of their
>> religion, color or else. Freedom of choice is a basic human right and
>> should never be compromised. Or forfeited.
>
>Water can make an impact, but water spends its entire life and existence on
>this one singule task. Pakistan will not be able to do anything else, if
>it is to focus like this water. What I mean is that yes, there is a chance
>that Pakistan can win, but the cost to Pakistan is huge. Actually, saner
>elements are questioning 57 years of Pakistani policy on Kashmir and its
>deleterious effect on Pakistan.
As I said earlier, if Pakistan stays poor, it wil become more redical,
more jihadi and will be more troublesome to India ( add poor Indian
Muslim to it and you got even more problem) , So the soultion rests in
th ebeter life of our poor , if hotilities fade, propserity comes,
borders between us may become justa dim line like in Europe. Europian
model is heer to follow. They fought enough and what finally came,
they leaned to co-exist witht hei own languages, cultures and
traditions and now they coming to some kind of union. Why are we so
naive not to follow their example.
>
>You have given me another opportunity to ask you why if "Freedom of choice"
>so basic, Pakistan does not wish to see this choice blossom in Xinjiang or
>Tibet?
May be they have to pay a price just like the worlds biggest democracy
was sitting in communist Russia's lap and gulping vodka. How many
times India told them, your system of government is crude and will
fail which eventually it did.
>>>By the way, why this hatred for the entity called "Banya"?
>>
>> I use Banyaa for all Hindus in abroad term. Nothing special about it
>> except the way Banyaa does business. Banyaa as we were told by our
>> elders, is/was a creature who used to lend money to poor people/
>> farmers on compound interest terms and then take every little thing
>> they posses, specially their land
>
>Then why the hatred for all Hindus? Actually, in pre-partition India the
>Pathaan was also a money-lending class.
That's what it looks . frankly I don't hate them just spank few
mischievous ones.
Surinder Singh
"งง Blue Ice งง" <Blue...@spamcop.gov> wrote in message
news:32htejF...@individual.net...
> pakistan is obsessed as it has nothing else to do.
> the moment they stop these jihadies, these very jihadies will screw
> pakistan.
They already are. If you throw acid on others, it will spill on you.
-s
Surinder Singh
>>Not wanting to hold the plebiscite is not the same as being afraid of it.
>>The reasons for not holding plebiscite are very many, fear plays a minor
>>role.
>
> Mind telling us those very many reasons. may be we agree with them.
I already have, but let me recap again. This is a very lengthy topic, so a
short brisk summary will help. India's perception of the problem, its root
cause is entirely different from that of Pakistan's. To understand India's
views, you will have to look at it from India's view. India does not
subscribe to the Two-Nation theory. For India to accept the two-nation
theory would have extremely disastrous consequences for India's Muslims.
It sees itself as a nation that can accomodate all religions. The
two-nation theory is looked upon with disgust. The idea of kashmiri fight
originates from two-nation theory. It cannot accept it. If all Kashmiris
were Hindus, you and I know that there would be no fight over it. The
fight is solely due to many Kashmiris being Muslims. Secondly, there is
nothing in Kashmiri history to suggest that it is naturally not a part of
India. The rules of partition were clear before partition began. India
got Kashmir fair and square according to those rules. If India was to give
a plebiscite in Kashmir, it would be in response to not an internal need, it
would be in response to an external low-intensity sub-conventional terrorism
war that Pakistan waged since early 1990's. Rewarding terror only invites
more (paraphrased from Ronal Reagan). Thirdly, if you give plebiscite to
Kashmir how are you going to deny plebiscite to Tamil Nadu, northern Kerela,
or a small locality of Friend's Colony, New Delhi? This is a slippery
path. There are hundreds of democratic nations in the world, none of them
have a codified procedure for its own dismember ment. Secession is not
treated well by any nation. If California was to demand secession or
plebiscite, do not imagine Washington to agree and hold it. Nations just
do not do it. Last time there was a demand for secession in the US, it lead
to a civil war. If Kasmir is given plebiscite, then we will have to accept
that every state in India is in India because of being non-Muslim and the
moment Muslims cross the 50% mark, then it is going to Pakistan. Accepting
this is going to naturally change indian mindset towards its Muslims. Most
importantly, India does not beleive that there is a significant population
of Kashmir that has problems with India. It knows that foreign terrorists
have played havoc. Anti insurgency creates ill-will towards the government
also. India also knows that the tribal Lashkars in 1948 did enough raping
and pillaging to turn off the Kashmiris and they do not necessarily hold
them dear.
I am giving you my understanding of the reasons. You may or may not agree
with them.
>>The rules of partition were that the king of a province decides. Maharaj
>>Gulab Singh opted for India and hence that is it. What is not fair and
>>square about it?
>
> Nothings as he was a dictator and has no right to did that without the
> vote of his people. India split was with a vote . Kashmir was a part
> of India and it's faith should also have been decided with the same
> principal. What happened to Hydrabad Dekkan and Juan Garh then.
> Rulers opted for Pakistan but India used force to keep them in India.
> Totally against your logic above.
These were the rules of Partition. Jinnah should have protested these
rules when they were made, not after the rules did not help him.
>>This ang of India is under attack by foregin terrorists.
>
> No sometimes " angs" of a body also rebel against the main body and
> separate. Indian history will reveal there never was any atoot ang in
> the Indian body . Every Nizam, Nawab, raja, Mahraja and evena Rani has
> her own ang pulsating at her own " tarung" . That is history of India
> before Moguls came . So this atoot ang theory does not really hold any
> water.
This is a common Pakistani perception. If you studied indian history, you
will find this patently not true.
>> The army is there
>>to quell them.
>
> Pakistani army did the same thing in East Pakistan and it was all
> wrong. Now Indian army is doing that in Kashmir and this is all right.
Indian army is not doing what Pakistani army did in 1970. There are no 3
million Kashmiris dead. There is no massive flood of refugees into any
neighbouring country. There is simply no comparison.
>> Prior to the insurgency, the army was not there,
>
> Prior to 1971 Pkaistni army was not killing Bengalis either.
We are not discussing BD. We are discussing Kashmir. What the pakistani
army did there is not relevant to this discussion.
> So in your opinion all claim of civility and democarcy are all false,
> World still runs on "might is always right" doctrine. Rest is all
> window dressing????
That unfortunately is true. There is no nation on the face of this earth
that raised a voice over the Chinse atrocities in Tibet.
>> Pakistan my repeat it ad infinitum, but there is no
>>country worth mentioning that supports it in any way. That is just how
>>the
>>world is. There are piles and piles of UN resolutions on Israel, more
>>stringent than Kashmir resolutions. Is there any possibility of their
>>implementation?
>
> Why you suddenly started talking like this Surinder. are you feeling
> fine??? Have you seen a shrink lately????
What is wrong with what I am saying.
> In fact
> we Pakistanis also want this behind us but if India just still showed
> stubbornness and suppressed it with power without an acceptable
> solution to kashmiris and Pakistanis, this problem will keep simmering
> for ever. The mature thing is to resolve it with some civility and
> work together with Pakistan and Kashmiris to better the life of common
> people in this aprt of the world. With all education, and all
> greatness bravada , sub-continent is still the poorest and pathetic
> part of the world.
Pakistan can always forget about Kashmir and devote its resources to its own
development rather than play this big political games out of proportion to
its size and strength. The fact that Pakistan harps on Kashmir to the
detriment of its existing population shows it cares more for Kashmir than
for its citizens. You should preach this message of caring for the poor
to your countrymen.
> Europian
> model is heer to follow. They fought enough and what finally came,
> they leaned to co-exist witht hei own languages, cultures and
> traditions and now they coming to some kind of union. Why are we so
> naive not to follow their example.
We think that more fighting will resolve the matter. Jinnah in 1947 divided
a perfectly fine nation. Now you are talking of making borders soft.
>>You have given me another opportunity to ask you why if "Freedom of
>>choice"
>>so basic, Pakistan does not wish to see this choice blossom in Xinjiang or
>>Tibet?
>
>
> May be they have to pay a price just like the worlds biggest democracy
> was sitting in communist Russia's lap and gulping vodka. How many
> times India told them, your system of government is crude and will
> fail which eventually it did.
Syed Ji. I read this again and again. I do not understand this statement.
Please explain.
-s
bang...@hotmail.com
>
> Horse-shit sniped, stupid wog!
>
> Here is some tids bids from HRW site....I can get you a whole
> encyclopaedia on Indian state terrorism
>
>
> http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/doda.htm#P187_42784
> Rape and Torture in Doda
>
> Indian forces and paramilitary militias working with them have been
> responsible for rape throughout the conflict.
>
Indian forces raped "West Pakistan" in the ass in 1971 and liberated
Bangladesh! Victory to India and Bangladesh!
syed
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>You have presented ONE scenario of Pakistan's defeat that will hurt India.
>But that is hardly a likely scenario. Pakistan is more likely to go haywire
>due to its own internal contradictions.
India need not be militarily
>involved inside Pakistan.
This is exactly what India did in East Pakistan. But now why India
cries in front of whole world, please stop jihadis coming form
Pakistan but if there is no Pakistan,
Who you gonna call ???
> In that situation, as long as India protects
>itself from the refugee onslought, it is fine.
India could not stop jihadis coming througha a small border even with
a fence now and you thinking controlling the whole border from
Sialkot to Run of kach.
> That is not that hurtful
>scenario.
You have no idea how bad it will be.
>>
>>> Disintegration of USSR was not bad
>>>for USA.
Just because America was smart enough to have good relations with
Russia. Plus Russia and America do not share borders .
>>
>> Or Russia so separation of Kashmir will not be bad for India.
>In
>> fact it might save Indian & Kashmiri lives and money India has to
>> spend to keep Kashmir in India. Same money can be spent on poverty
>> reduction in India and infrastructure improvement.
>
>You are changing the topic. Topic is how the disentagration of a country
>affects its competitor.
Surinder look above on the topic and you will we are totally of.
>I am giving an analogous example by pointing out
>that USA did not get hurt by USSR's disentegration.
Again due to smart US strategy and not having common borders
>>> Breakage of Pakistan into Bangladesh was not bad for India.
And how & when Kashmir problem started. Surinder wake up and smell
some nice tea. You still sleeping.
>>
>> Really, Kashmir problem sprung out of that example set by India. IF
>> India can incite East Pakistanis to a separate country, Kashmir was on
>> the UN notice board much before that.
>
>What are you really saying? One hand you say that Kashmir problem sprung out
>of India's intervention in BD. Then you go ahead and say that Kashmir was
>on UN notice board much before that. What is it?
Yes Kashmir was there since 1947 but Pakistan was not involved in a
proxy war till India did a Bangla Desh on Pakistan. and this is how
Pakistan army is getting even with India.
after both becoming open nuclear powers( thanks to Indian stupidity)
now it is very difficult for India to start even a conventional war as
the chances of it going nuclear are very obvious. So India is in fact
in a box.
>
>In case you are arguing the former, then I would disagree with you.
>Pakistan was obsessed with Kashmir regardless of Indian action in BD.
That is true and Pakistan will stay obsessed with it even at the cost
of poverty and dictatorships.
> If
>one breakage of Pakistan has not hurt India, I do not see how more breakages
>will.
India is not hurt. Indian cries are going all the way to 10 Downing
street and Pennsylvania avenue and you saying India is not hurt.
anyway nice talking to you Surinder.
Regards,
Syed
Surinder Singh
>>You have presented ONE scenario of Pakistan's defeat that will hurt India.
>>But that is hardly a likely scenario.
>
> This is exactly what India did in East Pakistan.
On what basis can you argue that India will follow the exact strategy it
followed in 1971? Can India not change strategy now? I thought you said
that the Banya is very foxy.
> But now why India
> cries in front of whole world, please stop jihadis coming form
> Pakistan but if there is no Pakistan,
>
> Who you gonna call ???
What is wrong with pointing out the Jihad export of Pakistan?
>> In that situation, as long as India protects
>>itself from the refugee onslought, it is fine.
>
> India could not stop jihadis coming througha a small border even with
> a fence now and you thinking controlling the whole border from
> Sialkot to Run of kach.
The border is mostly fenced. There is Border Security Force. We can stop
the refugee flow. It is not impossible. The fencing of the Kashmir border
is going right now. I do not see it as an impossible problem, just a
logistical problem.
>>>> Disintegration of USSR was not bad
>>>>for USA.
>
> Just because America was smart enough to have good relations with
> Russia. Plus Russia and America do not share borders .
The Western and non-Western countries that did share a border with USSR did
not fare badly due to USSR's break-up. So having a border is not
catastrophic. You have not shown break-up of Pakistan is inherently
automatically bad for India. I can give you more examples: Yugoslavia,
Czechoslovakia, Indonesia-East-Timor. None of these breakups caused any
catastrophe for its neighbors; on the contrary the breakup was good for
them.
>>>> Breakage of Pakistan into Bangladesh was not bad for India.
>
> And how & when Kashmir problem started. Surinder wake up and smell
> some nice tea. You still sleeping.
> [...]
> Yes Kashmir was there since 1947 but Pakistan was not involved in a
> proxy war till India did a Bangla Desh on Pakistan. and this is how
> Pakistan army is getting even with India.
It is a myth that Pakistan Army is encouraging terrorism in Kashmir solely
because India vivesected Pakistan in 1971. Pakistan has used the proxy
strategy much before that: it used tribal Lashkars in 1948. It used
infiltration in failed 1965 operation Gibraltor (or was it operation Grand
Slam?). Unemployed Jihadis from Afghanistan were pumped into Kashmir in
1990. The Jihadis became jobless because Russia withdrew from Afhganistan.
This even has no connection with Bangladesh's secession.
>>In case you are arguing the former, then I would disagree with you.
>>Pakistan was obsessed with Kashmir regardless of Indian action in BD.
>
> That is true and Pakistan will stay obsessed with it even at the cost
> of poverty and dictatorships.
It is no closer to getting Kashmir, but it is already getting poverty and
dictatorships.
-s
syed
syed
<com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:hfi9s05tss8r0pitd...@4ax.com...
>
>>>You have presented ONE scenario of Pakistan's defeat that will hurt India.
>>>But that is hardly a likely scenario.
>>
>> This is exactly what India did in East Pakistan.
>
>On what basis can you argue that India will follow the exact strategy it
>followed in 1971? Can India not change strategy now? I thought you said
>that the Banya is very foxy.
Foxes get into traps too sometimes. May be this time around , it is a
fox is in the trap.
>> But now why India
>> cries in front of whole world, please stop jihadis coming form
>> Pakistan but if there is no Pakistan,
>>
>> Who you gonna call ???
>
>What is wrong with pointing out the Jihad export of Pakistan?
>
If it was not wrong for Hindu west Bengalis to disguise being Bangla
Deshi then why it is wrong for Muslim Pakistani to disguise as a
Kashmiri??
>>> In that situation, as long as India protects
>>>itself from the refugee onslought, it is fine.
>>
>> India could not stop jihadis coming througha a small border even with
>> a fence now and you thinking controlling the whole border from
>> Sialkot to Run of kach.
>
>The border is mostly fenced. There is Border Security Force. We can stop
>the refugee flow. It is not impossible. The fencing of the Kashmir border
>is going right now. I do not see it as an impossible problem, just a
>logistical problem.
Learn from history and some recent case studies. Israel has a very
small border with Egypt near Gaza. Rag Tag Palestinians are giving
them a headache of their life even with all the high- tech available
to Israelis. So many Tunnels are going through that tiny border and
you talking about controlling more than a thousand miles of border
between India and Pakistan. Be practical Surinder, India will be a big
looser if Pakistan goes hay wire , mark my words there will be an end
less war which will suck the little left life from this already
pathetically poor part of the world.
>
>
>>>>> Disintegration of USSR was not bad
>>>>>for USA.
>>
>> Just because America was smart enough to have good relations with
>> Russia. Plus Russia and America do not share borders .
>
>The Western and non-Western countries that did share a border with USSR did
>not fare badly due to USSR's break-up. So having a border is not
>catastrophic. You have not shown break-up of Pakistan is inherently
>automatically bad for India. I can give you more examples: Yugoslavia,
>Czechoslovakia, Indonesia-East-Timor. None of these breakups caused any
>catastrophe for its neighbors; on the contrary the breakup was good for
>them.
So it will be not a problem if Kashmir secede from India. India will
survive even save his young people from dying in frigid peaks of
Kashmir.
>>>>> Breakage of Pakistan into Bangladesh was not bad for India.
>>
>> And how & when Kashmir problem started. Surinder wake up and smell
>> some nice tea. You still sleeping.
>> [...]
>> Yes Kashmir was there since 1947 but Pakistan was not involved in a
>> proxy war till India did a Bangla Desh on Pakistan. and this is how
>> Pakistan army is getting even with India.
>
>It is a myth that Pakistan Army is encouraging terrorism in Kashmir solely
>because India vivesected Pakistan in 1971. Pakistan has used the proxy
>strategy much before that: it used tribal Lashkars in 1948.
it was a war as Pakistan always said, Kashmir is taken unjustly by
India .
> It used
>infiltration in failed 1965 operation Gibraltor (or was it operation Grand
>Slam?).
It again was a war as Pakistan always said, Kashmir is taken unjustly
by India and not infiltration.
> Unemployed Jihadis from Afghanistan were pumped into Kashmir in
>1990.
They want an occupation, they were unemployed after the defeat of
great Russian army. So they came to Kashmir . If Grande India can't
stop them coming in , you think much smaller Pakistan can??
>The Jihadis became jobless because Russia withdrew from Afhganistan.
>This even has no connection with Bangladesh's secession.
>
>
>>>In case you are arguing the former, then I would disagree with you.
>>>Pakistan was obsessed with Kashmir regardless of Indian action in BD.
>>
>> That is true and Pakistan will stay obsessed with it even at the cost
>> of poverty and dictatorships.
>
>It is no closer to getting Kashmir, but it is already getting poverty and
>dictatorships.
Pakistanis are used to it now. The Politicians of Pakistan were/are
no better than the army men, so who gives a damn anymore army or
politicians. World think of Bhutto , Nawaz and Altaf as
politicians but Pakistanis know who they were/are in civilian dress.
habshi
them a headache of their life even with all the high- tech available
to Israelis. <
Only because the Israelis are humane . If it had been a Muslim
country they would have killed or driven off the palestinians a long
time ago .
Surinder Singh
>>On what basis can you argue that India will follow the exact strategy it
>>followed in 1971? Can India not change strategy now? I thought you
>>said
>>that the Banya is very foxy.
>
> Foxes get into traps too sometimes. May be this time around , it is a
> fox is in the trap.
Maybe yes, maybe no. It is simply speculation. Given that disintegration
of so many countries has not hurt their neighbours, it is more likely that
India will not be hurt.
>>What is wrong with pointing out the Jihad export of Pakistan?
>>
>
> If it was not wrong for Hindu west Bengalis to disguise being Bangla
> Deshi then why it is wrong for Muslim Pakistani to disguise as a
> Kashmiri??
Any proof that that the Hindus of WB disguised themselves as BD's in 1971?
Pakistani official story does not constitute proof, by the way.
> Learn from history and some recent case studies. Israel has a very
> small border with Egypt near Gaza. Rag Tag Palestinians are giving
> them a headache of their life even with all the high- tech available
> to Israelis. So many Tunnels are going through that tiny border and
> you talking about controlling more than a thousand miles of border
> between India and Pakistan. Be practical Surinder, India will be a big
> looser if Pakistan goes hay wire , mark my words there will be an end
> less war which will suck the little left life from this already
> pathetically poor part of the world.
But it is manageable. The scale of the problem is different: from
fighting a proxy war, it will change into a problem of controlling influx of
refugees into India. Far different problem.
> So it will be not a problem if Kashmir secede from India. India will
> survive even save his young people from dying in frigid peaks of
> Kashmir.
It will not be a problem for Pakistan. For India it will be.
>> Unemployed Jihadis from Afghanistan were pumped into Kashmir in
>>1990.
>
> They want an occupation, they were unemployed after the defeat of
> great Russian army. So they came to Kashmir . If Grande India can't
> stop them coming in , you think much smaller Pakistan can??
The discussion that Pakistan *cannot* stop them comes about only if Pakistan
*wants* to stop them. Pakistan, on the contrary, is instrumental in their
training, infiltration, and supplying them. It is a state sponsor of these
terrorists.
>>It is no closer to getting Kashmir, but it is already getting poverty and
>>dictatorships.
>
> Pakistanis are used to it now. The Politicians of Pakistan were/are
> no better than the army men, so who gives a damn anymore army or
> politicians. World think of Bhutto , Nawaz and Altaf as
> politicians but Pakistanis know who they were/are in civilian dress.
The fact that Pakistanis do not care whether they elect their leader or are
forced upon a leader speaks volumes about how traumatized and un-enlighted
it is. It is actually quite sad.
-s
§§ Blue Ice §§
> "syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
> news:lsh7s0lulqr0d4tsu...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>>
>>May be they have to pay a price just like the worlds biggest democracy
>>was sitting in communist Russia's lap and gulping vodka. How many
>>times India told them, your system of government is crude and will
>>fail which eventually it did.
>
to draw the analogy, pakistan was sitting on uncle sam's lap and eating
pork. and that is the price u have to pay for becoming a lapdog of
americans or for being the foremost jihadi production centre in the world.
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> Memorabilia On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:02:07 -0600, "Surinder Singh"
><com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Mr. N.K. Datta, I do
>>read his posts as they are articles that I would not be able to
access.
>
holds
> all the anti-Pakistani posts and regurgitate ten times a week
> sometimes a day even.
>
"NK" posts are not anti-Pakistani posts.
The posts that Mr. Syed has chosen to despise are
usually excerpts from articles by thoughtful Pakistani
writers and journalists who are all patriots of the
first order. They write, what they write, only because
they wish Pakistan well.
Mr. Syed's allergy for "NK" posts is most likely a
reflection of his ethnic chauvinism, class bias and
a general lack of patriotism. Mr. Syed is the type
that military dictators in Pakistan have depended on
to perpetuate their dictatorships.
It is a truism that democracies do not give priority
to waging war on each other. Peace in the subcontinent
will have a much better chance when Pakistan's voters
get to choose their own governments instead of being
dictated upon by the Kakul kleptocrats.
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
in Pakistan. Under the circumstances, it would
have been most surprising if the demographic
shift hadn't extended to PoK as well.
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
>
>> Here are some details about Pakistan, in general.
>> The article is by Shahid Javed Burki, a Pakistani
>> economist who had worked for the World Bank:
>>
>> ==================================================================
>> http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/29/op.htm#1
>>
>
> This article does not shed light on how the demographic shift
happened in
> PoK.
>
> -s
It does shed light on the demographic shift
syed
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 01:15:22 GMT, hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
>> It was Pakistan which sent ten million BDs into India and
>> despite all of Indira Gandhi's efforts wouldnt take them back .
[deleted]
>> It was expelling more and more Bengali Muslims and would have
>> ethnically cleansed all Bengalis out of Bangladesh
>
> Again shrewd statement, if you say all subdued and passive Bengalis
> one can agree but displacement of so many Bengalis( more than
> Punjabis in Pakistan) is only your crooked brains concoction.
>
>>and settled it with
>>the exploding number of Punjabis and Pathans
More than 10 million refugess had fled
across East Pakistan's border in 1971 -
that's more than the entire population of
Jammu & Kashmir in 1971! More than 3 million
lost their lives in the genocide - that's
more than the entire Muslim population of the
Kashmir Valley in 1971!!
Mr. Syed's ignorance on the toll of the 1971
genocide is quite understandable in view of
the fact that West Pakistani journals were
under strict censorship during those nine
months of infamy in 1971.
But if Mr. Syed were really interested in the
truth, he could have always find out the truth
from available literature. Such literature is
available from 1971 itself.
In fact, it was a DAWN correspondent (Anthony
Mascarenhas) who gave some of the earliest eye
witness accounts to the outside world in the
midst of the 1971 genocide. Needless to say,
he knew quite well that with General Yahya Khan
at the helm, DAWN wouldn't dare/care to publish
his account. He fled to the safety of England
with his family before he allowed his eye witness
account to be published in a well known and well
respected British newspaper.
If Mr. Syed bothers to go to the library and
research the newspapers during 1971, he'll realize
that the genocide was not only well reported but
newspaper accounts tracked the death toll quite
well over the 9 months. Here is the toll of the
genocide as reported by some newspapers around the
world during that infamous period:
The Baltimore Sun (5/14/71) : 0.5 million
The Momento, Caracas (6/13/71) : 0.5 - 1.0
Washington Daily News (6/30/71) : 0.2
World Bank Report (June, 71) : 0.2 (upto June 11, 1971)
Die Zeit, Bonn (7/9/71) : 0.5
New York Times (7/14/71) : 0.20 - 0.25
Wall Street Journal (7/23/71) : 0.2 - 1.0
The Christian Sci. Mon. (7/31/71) : 0.25 - 1.00
Newsweek (8/2/71) : 0.25
Time (9/2/71) : 0.2 - 1.0
Newsweek (3/27/72) : 1.5
National Geographic (Sept. 1972) : 3.0
A lot of research has gone into the 1971 killings
since the National Geographic estimate of 3 million
in September of 1972. While the exact number might
never be known, most researchers place the estimate
between 1.5 to 3 million.
An authoratative reference would be Professor Rudolf
Rummel's seminal book on democide:
Death By Government
By R.J. Rummel
The hardcover costs about $130.00. However, a
paperback is also now available at about $30.00.
Professor Rudolf Rummel has researched extensively
on democide, in general, and the 1971 killings in
particular. In Professor Rummel's words, "After a
well organized military buildup in East Pakistan
the military launched its campaign. No more than
267 days later they had succeeded in killing perhaps
1,500,000 people, created 10,000,000 refugees who had
fled to India.."
If Mr. Syed is unable to land his hands on Professor
Rummel's landmark book, he might look at the following
URL:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM
It is a chapter from a Rummel book, "Statistics Of
Democide". The chapter is titled, "Statistics Of
Pakistan's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources"
A lot of books have been published on the topic. If
Mr. Syed is really interested, he needn't depend on
West Pakistani publications of 1971 under General
Yahya Khan's dictatorship. Mr. Syed can easily research
available literature on the topic and find out for himself
what professional journalists, scholars and researchers
have concluded in their publications.
syed
On 20 Dec 2004 12:13:32 -0800, nkdat...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>syed wrote:
>> Memorabilia On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:02:07 -0600, "Surinder Singh"
>><com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. N.K. Datta, I do
>>>read his posts as they are articles that I would not be able to
>access.
>>
>> Well you can if you have nothing else to do. NK is like a Teevo,
>holds
>> all the anti-Pakistani posts and regurgitate ten times a week
>> sometimes a day even.
>>
>
>"NK" posts are not anti-Pakistani posts.
>
>The posts that Mr. Syed has chosen to despise are
>usually excerpts from articles by thoughtful Pakistani
>writers and journalists who are all patriots of the
>first order. They write, what they write, only because
>they wish Pakistan well.
Mr. NK
All these articles you post without fail are all critical of
Pakistani Kashmir policy . Why have you not posted a single article(
even a single time) which support any Pakistani government policy to
date( that shows your bias and one -track mentality)
>Mr. Syed's allergy for "NK" posts is most likely a
>reflection of his ethnic chauvinism, class bias and
>a general lack of patriotism.
Mr. NK's posting of these all anti Pakistani articles from Pakistani
papers reflect what , Chauvinism, bigotry, shrewdness or what ???
I want to ask few questions to you Mr. NK
1: Why you only re-post articles from Pakistani media ten times
everyday ?????
2: Why don't you post any articles critical of India or Indian
policies ever from Pakistani press or n from India press???
3: Why there are at least 8-10 anti-Pakistani articles re-posted by
you everyday???
4: Aren’t you a paid agent of Indian agency RAW or other to sit here
on SCP and anti-Pakistani post numerous times a day/week the same
article???
Does all the above not reflect you are no friend of Pakistan but a
cunning anti-Pakistani Hindu whose job is to re-post anti-Pakistani
stuff with the ultimate aim to defame them and to score points on
propaganda war.
>Mr. Syed is the type
>that military dictators in Pakistan have depended on
>to perpetuate their dictatorships.
Mr.Nk has no idea how critical I am/was of military rule/policies
when in as in Pakistan( even politely warned by one senior to cool it
as I myself was working in a semi-government estblishment).
>
>It is a truism that democracies do not give priority
>to waging war on each other.
War was waged in sub-continent by a so-called very giant democratic
leader Bhutto twice ( in ayub's time and then in yahya's time by him)
and the other one in another democraticallly elected leader Nawaz
Saharif) and if someone says he never knew that, then these powerless
leaders have no right to govern.
>Peace in the subcontinent
>will have a much better chance when Pakistan's voters
>get to choose their own governments instead of being
>dictated upon by the Kakul kleptocrats.
Muslim world gets leader first by big powers before the voters. Hope
you are intelligent enough to know whereI am pointing. In my opinion
democracy in India and Pakistan is as a fake Rolex watch one buys
very cheap in sub-continent.
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> On 20 Dec 2004 12:13:32 -0800, nkdat...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>>"NK" posts are not anti-Pakistani posts.
>>
>>The posts that Mr. Syed has chosen to despise are
>>usually excerpts from articles by thoughtful Pakistani
>>writers and journalists who are all patriots of the
>>first order. They write, what they write, only because
>>they wish Pakistan well.
>
> Pakistani Kashmir policy . Why have you not posted a single
article(
> even a single time) which support any Pakistani government policy to
> date( that shows your bias and one -track mentality)
>
I can easily guess why Mr. Syed would rather
publicize articles that support the position of
Pakistan's military dictatorship. But if
responsible Pakistani journalists and writers
don't toe the line of Pakistan's military
dictatorship, it is because their primary loyalty
is toward Pakistan and its common citizens rather
than toward Pakistan's military dictators and
their henchmen.
>
>>Mr. Syed's allergy for "NK" posts is most likely a
>>reflection of his ethnic chauvinism, class bias and
>>a general lack of patriotism.
>
> Mr. NK's posting of these all anti Pakistani articles from Pakistani
> papers reflect what , Chauvinism, bigotry, shrewdness or what ???
>
Mr. Syed's bias shows all too well when he
denounces artcles from Pakistani papers that
do not reflect the position of Pakistan's
military dictatorship as "ant Pakistani articles".
If Mr. Syed had Pakistan's well-being in his
heart, he had would have recognized that it is
these that are "pro Pakistan articles"
>
> I want to ask few questions to you Mr. NK
>
Mr. Syed should ask himself why he insists on
denouncing articles by well known Pakistani
journalists and authors as "anti Pakistani
articles"? If Mr. Syed were honest, he would
have readily recognized that articles toeing
the military dictatorship in Pakistan are the
ones that are "anti Pakistani articles".
>
> ..... you are no friend of Pakistan but a
> cunning anti-Pakistani Hindu .....
Mr. Syed's vtuperation gives away his game.
He would have no doubt liked to say that the
Pakistani journalists and writers who do not
toe the line of Pakistan's military dictatrship
are all "cunning anti-Pakistan Hindus"!!!
>
>>Mr. Syed is the type
>>that military dictators in Pakistan have depended on
>>to perpetuate their dictatorships.
>
> Mr.Nk has no idea how critical I am/was of military rule/policies
> when in as in Pakistan( even politely warned by one senior to cool
it
> as I myself was working in a semi-government estblishment).
>
And I still have no idea, and understandably so,
in Mr. Syed's denunciation of Pakistani writers
and journalists who do not toe the line of the
Kakul kleptocrats.
>
>>
>>It is a truism that democracies do not give priority
>>to waging war on each other.
>
> War was waged in sub-continent by a so-called very giant democratic
> leader Bhutto twice ( in ayub's time and then in yahya's time by him)
> and the other one in another democraticallly elected leader Nawaz
> Saharif) and if someone says he never knew that, then these
powerless
> leaders have no right to govern.
>
Another example of duplicity.
Pakistan's military has habitually tried to lay
the blame on civilians to justify their devious
games to feather their own nests.
Why is Mr. Syed trying to deflect from General
Musharraf's responsibility for the Kargil war?
The General waged his war behind the backs of
the civilian administration which had just
concluded a succssful meeting of the minds in
Lahore with their Indian counterparts?
And why put the blame on Bhutto? Neither "Field
Marshal" Ayub Khan nor General Yahya Khan thought
much of elected leaders. Bhutto was brought to the
corridors of power, not by elections, but, by
generals Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan - Bhutto was
no more than a civilian underling of "Field Marshal"
Ayub Khan in 1965. If the "Field Marshal" heeded
the advice of Bhutto, it was only because the
"Field Marshal" and his military were already
convinced that the time was ripe to make good the
military's boast dating back to 1947, "Has ke liya
Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan". The "Field Marshal"
with his belief that one Pakistani soldier was more
than ten "Hindu" soldiers didn't need a Bhutto to
egg him on. He did it on his own and with full
support of Pakistan's military.
And, as for 1971, once again it is dishonest to
pretend that General Yahya Khan was yielding to
democatically elected leaders. If deference to
democratically elected leaders were General Yahya's
criterion, then he would have rather listened to
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman whose party had won twice as
many seats in the Parliament as Bhutto's party had.
Bhutto, of course, had his own axe to grind. But to
get his way, Bhutto had to convince the military that
a government headed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would
not be helpful to perpetuate the corporate interests
of the military. And that's what was the clincher for
the go ahead to trashing the verdict of the 1970
elections.
And, yes, the 1990s saw Nawaz Sharif and Bhutto getting
"elected" Prime Ministers. But they were no more than
puppets. The Kakul kleptocrats were the puppeteers. It
was always the military that did the "electing" (as also
the sacking) as it played musical chairs with the civilian
aspirants for Prime Ministership. The Kakul kleptocrats
always wielded the real power.
>
>>Peace in the subcontinent
>>will have a much better chance when Pakistan's voters
>>get to choose their own governments instead of being
>>dictated upon by the Kakul kleptocrats.
>
> Muslim world gets leader first by big powers before the voters.
If it does so, it is because it has far too many
Mr. Syeds who would denounce anyone and anyone
writing against dictatorships as unpatriotic.
> Hope
> you are intelligent enough to know whereI am pointing.
Mr. Syed is underestimating other people's
intelligence by denouncing the writings of
patriotic writers and journalists as unpatriotic.
It has to be because of the Mr. Syeds that
the "Muslim world gets leader first by big powers
before the voters".
> In my opinion
> democracy in India and Pakistan is as a fake Rolex watch one buys
> very cheap in sub-continent.
Mr. Syed hasn't earned the credibility to have his
opinions get precedence over the opinions of many
a patriotic Pakistani writer and journalist. Here's
a small sample of the opinions of such writers and
journalists:
=========================================================================
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/apr2004-daily/21-04-2004/oped/editorial.htm
The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Wednesday April 21, 2004-- Safar 30, 1425 A.H.
EDITORIAL
Indian elections
There is much that can be criticised about India - its Kashmir
policy,
caste ridden society, hegemonistic tendencies etc, but one must
appreciate the fact that it regularly conducts elections. The 14th Lok
Sabha (lower house) election which began yesterday is the world's
largest exercise of its kind and is stretched across five dates up to
May 10. In all 543 members of Lok Sabha will be elected by an
estimated 670 million voters. The statistics are staggering in terms
of the number of polling stations (700,000), the staff needed and the
number of parties in the fray. Another achievement this year will be
the use of electronic voting machines for the voters to remove all
doubts.
But while these are mainly the data about the elections, what is
worthy of praise is the regularity with which this exercise is held.
With some exceptions there are no delays, no excuses and no attempts
to tamper with the process. The public accepts the credibility of the
polls without demur much like it relies on a dependable brand product.
These are the qualities that have won the Indian electoral exercise
international recognition and presented it as a model for other states
which are trying to tread on a democratic path.
As compared to this, our own experience with polls is dismaying. Apart
from the frequent prolonged periods of electoral drought, the exercise
has been marred by excessive changes in the mode and definition, last
minute registration of voters and changes in constituencies. For
instance on one occasion democracy became basic democracy and the
voters were reduced to 80,000 basic democrats or local bodies
councilors who formed a sort of an electoral college. At another time
partyless elections were held, whatever that means, while twice
referendums were staged to vote presidents into office. This was
besides that method clearly laid out in the constitution.
The result is that not only has the voter turnout dwindled to
pathetically low figures but that there is increasing scepticism about
the integrity of the elections. Few really believe that the results
truly reflect the wishes of the people. The charge of rigging becomes
the most common complaint as defeated candidates and parties elaborate
on the complex method of mass vote fraud. But one grouse that has
basis is the charge of misuse of the administrative machinery,
specially those that have a coercive ability like the police and
district and lower level officialdom.
All this presents a sad picture of our poor experience with elections.
Observers have copiously commented on our failure while experts have
spent much midnight oil in trying to devise what are described as
foolproof elections, or to use a trite phrase "free, fair and
transparent polling." It is sad that cynicism is so heavy that come
election time the government and those incharge of elections repeat ad
nauseam the fairness of the proposed exercise. The government would
have done better had it sent teams of observers drawn from the
political parties and EC to find out just why do the Indian elections
click and why not ours.
=========================================================================
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2004-daily/12-09-2004/oped/o4.htm
The News, Karachi, Pakistan
Sunday September 12, 2004-- Rajab 26, 1425 A.H.
A 'tribute' to Indian democracy
By Dr Farrukh Saleem
farruk...@hotmail.com
The United Nations, the representative body of 191 Sovereign Member
States, has requested the Election Commission of India to assist the
UN in the holding of elections in Al Jumhuriyah al Iraqiyah and
Dowlat-e Eslami-ye Afghanistan.
The UN's request is a great tribute to India's democracy, and in the
midst of it all lays the secret to India's territorial integrity. Over
a billion people spread over 2,973,190 sq. km of landmass; 28 states
and seven union territories. A total of fifteen official languages:
Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Gujarati, Malayalam,
Kannada, Oriya, Punjabi, Assamese, Kashmiri, Sindhi, and Sanskrit.
.....
..... There is only one India. The only dissident that General Agha
Mohammed Yahya Khan was up against was Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman. On 26
March 2004, the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh celebrated her 33rd
Independence Day. On the 16th of every December, Bangladesh celebrates
"Victory day".
Why the Election Commission of India and not the Election Commission
of Pakistan? After all, Islamabad is closer to Kabul than is Delhi.
To be certain, India's parliamentary election is the biggest on the
face of the planet. Over the past 53 years, the Election Commission of
India has conducted 16 Lok Sabha and some 300 Assembly elections. On
29 July 2003, the Election Commission of India announced that "every
vote in its 2004 national election will be registered and counted
using electronic ballot machines."
For the record, more than 600 million registered voters 380 million of
whom showed up to vote (in the 2004 election). A total of 700,000
polling station, some 4.5 million election staff and 2 million
security personnel. Imagine Outer Delhi is the largest parliamentary
constituency with 30 million electors. Expenditure on the conduct of
election: Rs800 crores. Imagine, paper used for printing ballot paper:
8,000 metric ton. Ladakh was the largest parliamentary constituency
spread over 173,266 square km while Delhi Sadr was a mere 28 sq. km.
Holding elections in India is like holding elections in the United
States, Canada, Australia and the whole of Europe all at once.
India has 853 million Hindus, 125 million Muslims and 24 million
Christians (plus Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis). Avul Pakir
Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam is the President of India. Abdul Kalam is a
Muslim. Abdul Kalam is a vegetarian, and Abdul Kalam was awarded the
Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award.
We are the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As per Article 62 of our
Constitution "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen
as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora unless he has adequate knowledge of
Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam
as well as abstains from major sins Unless. He is sagacious, righteous
and non-profligate and honest and ameen." If Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen
Abdul Kalam was a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan he could
not have qualified to be an ordinary member of our Majlis-e-Shoora.
.....
..... The answer to the question "why the Election Commission of India
and not the Election Commission of Pakistan" definitely lies less in
mere statistics and more in the "genuineness" of elections.
Ironically, it was also in the month of August, some 25 years prior to
the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the United
Nations and the Election Commission of India, that General Mohammad
Zia-ul-Haq had decided to declare "political parties as defunct."
=========================================================================
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/sep-2004/20/columns4.php
The Nation, Pakistan
Monday, September 20, 2004
Pakistan's dilemma
By IKRAM ULLAH
Ever since the birth of Pakistan the ups and downs in our national
politics have not allowed the parliamentary democracy to take root.
.....
..... In India it was a different story. The Indian Constitution was
framed in 1949. According to its Article 324, which envisages setting
up of an independent election commission for holding free and fair
elections, a one-man election commission was set up on January 25,
1950. It put the Indian democracy on the rails and was further
strengthened by the political stability and strong leadership provided
by Mr Nehru till 1964. Whereas Pakistan, in its search for true
parliamentary democracy, can be compared with a blind person in a dark
room, looking for a black cat, which is not there.
In India the EC and the Lok Sabha Speaker guard the legacy of
democracy with such zeal that they are often termed dictators in the
performance of their functions. If elections to parliament could ever
be held in Pakistan matching the mammoth Indian exercise and if the
guardians of our National Assembly and the Senate could discharge
their functions with similar independence as in the Lok Sabha and
Rajya Sabha, we would not be faced with never-ending series of crises
in Pakistan. It would be in the fitness of things to briefly say a few
words about the system our neighbours have evolved over the past half
a century whereas we are still debating whether uniform has anything
to do with democracy.
The Indian elections involved political mobilisation and
organisational complexity on an amazing scale. In General Elections
2004 there were 5435 candidates for 543 seats of the Lok Sabha. Out of
671.5 million voters 389 million exercised their franchise at 687,402
polling stations. During these elections, 1.075 million Electronic
Voting Machines (EVMs) were used in all constituencies for the first
time. The direct cost of these elections was approximately Rs 13000
million (US $280 million). While around four million civil employees
were engaged in conduct of these elections with 250,000 paramilitary
and police personnel performing the law and order duty. In total six
national parties, forty-five state parties and 702 registered
unrecognised parties took part in these elections.
As for the Indian EC, initially it was single member Commission
consisting of only the CEC. Later, in 1989 and once again in 1993, it
was made a three-member Commission. At present it consists of CEC and
two election commissioners. It is the duty of the Election Commission,
under the Constitution, to hold free and fair elections, to both the
houses of the Parliament, state legislatures and of the President and
Vice-President of India. The EC, an independent constitutional
authority plays a fundamental and critical role in providing
level-playing field to various political parties. The President of
India appoints the CEC and election commissioners. The Constitution
provides the safeguard against altering their service conditions and
removal from the office. The EC is absolutely independent and has been
acclaimed internationally for its role in strengthening Indian
democracy. It is vested with the responsibility of preparing,
maintaining and periodically updating electoral rolls.
Besides registering political parties it monitors election campaign,
expenditure incurred by various candidates and allocates time on
public electronic media to various parties.
The EC headquartered in New Delhi has deputy election commissioners
and a 350-member secretariat which assists it in performing its
duties. At the state level, chief electoral officers coordinate all
election-related duties. The Commission virtually manages the
elections with the help of these DEOs who are also district
magistrates. The Commission makes elaborate arrangements for training
the personnel engaged in elections. No private individual is
associated with the process of election.
=========================================================================
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/july-2004/19/EDITOR/op4.asp
The Nation, Pakistan
MONDAY JULY 19, 2004
The role of military in politics
By Roedad Khan
..... On August 14 / 15 1947, both Pakistan and India emerged as
sovereign, independent, democratic countries with great hopes and high
expectations. 57 years after independence, the Indian army remains
bound by tight constitutional and political constraints. There has
been no coup, no colonels or brigadiers conspiracy to seize power. The
Indian army has not intervened in politics. De Tocqueville and other
theorists have argued that democracy and a large standing army were
incompatible, but India has managed both. Indian democracy has stood
the test of time.
The constitution has kept the country united, allowed its democracy to
survive and kept the armed forces at bay. The structure of the Indian
civil-military relationship is still intact largely because the
legitimacy of the political system remains high. The British tradition
of separate spheres of military and civil authority has carried over.
Indian officers like to boast that politics and military do not mix;
that the two are immutably different and separate. Junior officers are
taught to be political illiterates. Tragically, Pakistan army followed
a different path with disastrous consequences for the country.
The engine of history is moving Pakistan backwards. .....
=========================================================================
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
24 April 2004 Saturday 03 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425
Stumbling along
By Irfan Husain
As we wrestle with weighty matters like how to ensure the political
survival of our general-president after he retires from the army,
nearly 700 million of our neighbours are voting for their next
government.
While Indians have enjoyed a democratic polity virtually throughout
their independent existence, we have lurched from one army
intervention to the next. Volumes could be written about the causes
for the divergent routes the two sundered countries took after
Partition. Indeed, many volumes have been written on the subject, and
no doubt many more will be.
I have been reflecting on this ever since the Indian election campaign
began a few weeks ago, and I received several patronizing emails from
Indian readers who gleefully compared the failure of democracy in
Pakistan with its success in their country. I suppose they have the
right to gloat, but it's still depressing stuff for a Pakistani.
Whenever I have written against army rule, many of my Pakistani
readers have reminded me that these interventions have been caused by
the corruption and inefficiency of our politicians.
But this is an unfair assumption as it glosses over the fact that the
money-making propensity of our military officer class is too often
ignored by the media, while even vague rumours tarnishing politicians
are exaggerated and turned into gospel. What role the ISI and other
agencies play in this is a matter of speculation.
While we have not debated this aspect thoroughly enough, I suspect
geography and culture played at least as important a part in the
failure of democracy in Pakistan as did ambition and immaturity.
When Pakistan came into being divided by a thousand miles of Indian
territory, the centre of gravity of the new state was naturally
located in the western wing. Jinnah was from West Pakistan, as were
the senior-most military and civil officers. The capital was located
there, as was the commercial centre and the major port.
However, the east/west configuration was a logistical disaster:
religion apart, there were no other uniting factors between the two.
The strains began showing right from the beginning with the language
riots in 1948 following a speech by Jinnah in which he declared Urdu
to be the national language.
But it was in the crucial arena of constitution-making and
power-sharing that these differences warped the entire process. With
their superior, colonial mindset, West Pakistani politicians, civil
servants and army officers were reluctant to see the transfer of power
to Dhaka implicit in a one-man, one-vote formula that is the basis of
any democratic dispensation.
They therefore dragged their feet in framing a constitution, and the
document finally arrived at after nearly a decade of wrangling
incorporated an odd "one-unit" concept that offset Bengali superiority
in numbers by amalgamating the four western provinces.
Meanwhile, the ensuing political vacuum encouraged a succession of
political hacks to play musical chairs, thus opening the door to
military adventurers. After East Pakistan's bloody rebirth as
Bangladesh, we lost the counterweight to Punjab which, by dint of its
60 per cent population, soon acquired the commanding heights of the
civil and military administration.
Tension with India contributed to strengthening the role of the army.
And we must not forget that the Muslim League had no democratic
traditions to build on after the creation of Pakistan.
So why am I resurrecting these ghosts from the past? After all, much
of all this has been recounted by scholars and journalists on more
than one occasion. The problem is that we continue to live with the
systemic distortions in our political system caused by these past
events and errors. Worse, we continue to repeat them.
The current attempts to anoint Musharraf as he struggles to balance
the conflicting demands of power and democracy is a case in point.
Ayub Khan was in a similar quandary, as was Zia. Both took their
separate routes to try and resolve this dilemma, with mixed results.
Now it is Musharraf's turn. The referendum trick having failed
miserably, he is now going through a series of painful contortions to
retain real power while placating the vocal elements in parliament and
the country who are insisting that he retire from the army.
Opportunists like the breakaway PPP and PML factions currently in the
cabinet, as well as Farooq Leghari who sees an opening for the prime
ministership, are desperate to strengthen his hands. But all these
shady manoeuvres expose yet again the failure of democracy to put down
roots in our barren soil.
India was fortunate in having the leadership of giants like Nehru for
several years after Independence. His stature ensured that liberal,
secular values became part of the country's political ethos.
The Congress already had a democratic character, and there were
several strong leaders who were involved in decision-making, thus
preventing the party from becoming a one-man show.
Another advantage was that no single province dominated the political
landscape, or the army and the administration. The sheer size and
diversity of the country militates against an all-powerful central
government inherent in army rule.
And the early continuity in leadership provided by the Congress and
the Nehru family must have acted as a deterrent to any political
ambition that might have been harboured by Indian generals.
While Indian politicians have been as ambitious as their counterparts
anywhere else, they have not curried favour with the army brass to
attain power. Their only route to power lies through the ballot box.
In Pakistan, we have the unedifying spectacle of a respected
politician like Farooq Leghari who, as president, occupied the highest
office in the land, but is now merging his party into the 'Q' faction
of the Muslim League to make a bid for the office of prime minister.
If he does succeed in achieving his grubby ambition, he will be
subordinate to General Musharraf in Pakistan's warped version of
parliamentary democracy.
All this only goes to prove that once you start tinkering with an
established political system to suit the needs of individual
adventurers, be they civilians or generals, you end up with an ad hoc
arrangement that does not outlast its author.
Worse, these shady deals eat at the foundations of democracy as well
as the people's confidence in the system. The entire process is
discredited and the electorate sees no point in voting when their
priorities and needs are totally divorced from policies.
=========================================================================
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> "syed" <50...@highstream.net> wrote in message
> news:lsh7s0lulqr0d4tsu...@4ax.com...
>> wrong. Now Indian army is doing that in Kashmir and this is all
right.
>
> Indian army is not doing what Pakistani army did in 1970. There are
no 3
> million Kashmiris dead. There is no massive flood of refugees into
any
> neighbouring country. There is simply no comparison.
>
More than 10 million refugess had fled
across East Pakistan's border in 1971 -
that's more than the entire population of
Jammu & Kashmir in 1971!
More than 3 million lost their lives in
the genocide - that's more than the entire
Muslim population of the Valley in 1971!!
>
> -s
syed
Mr.NK in the following you have written ten times( repetition is your
game, you are of the school who says repeat a lie many times and
people will take it as truth.
Let me clear few things here
1: I have not denounced any Pakistani writer even once whosoever has
written anything for or against the government line,
I DENOUNCED Mr. NKDatta " WHO PICK ONLY THE ARTICLES FIT HIS
ANTI-PAKISTANI AGENDA "
and post it hundred times and never posts any article from Indian
press opposing Indian government policies( why becuaee he is Indian
government stooge) . My beef is with Mr.NK not with these writers (
in fact many a times I am in agreement with them) Show me one article
where I denounced even one of them. I denounce you for your shrewd
behavior . If you are such an honest unbiased Hindu intellectual, show
me one article where you denounced/criticized you Indian government on
this forum on ay thing even the Gujarat tragedy ( I can understand
that as my wild guess is you working for Indian intelligence
agencies).
Now be a man and show readers on this forum where and when you have
written/criticized any of Indian policy/propaganda line. On the other
hand I have always lumped Pakistani politicians/army in the same line
( even in a very recent post ).
I know what my people are and how they operate. frankly Indians
politicians/army generals are not too far away in their general
behavior( corruption, cronyism, and Gora imitation). The general
psyche of both Indian and Pakistani army ( Sandhurst rings any bell)
and general population( volatile & emotional) is the same . Screw the
weak and salute the powerful ( thanks to hundreds years of Mogul &
Gora slavery)
>On 20 Dec 2004 15:03:34 -0800, nkdat...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>syed wrote:
>> On 20 Dec 2004 12:13:32 -0800, nkdat...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>>>"NK" posts are not anti-Pakistani posts.
>>>
>>>The posts that Mr. Syed has chosen to despise are
>>>usually excerpts from articles by thoughtful Pakistani
>>>writers
I despise you not them as you use those articles which fit your
anti-Pakistani propaganda .
>and journalists who are all patriots of the
>>>first order. They write, what they write, only because
>>>they wish Pakistan well.
I have never questioned their patriotism ( even agreed with them but
you choose only those articles which go in favor of your propaganda.
Answer me why have you not posted even one article where an Indian
journalist( thousands of them write everyday against Indian government
policies, only you have placed blinders on your eyes fro them) has
criticized Indian policies????
>>
>> All these articles you post without fail are all critical of
>> Pakistani Kashmir policy . Why have you not posted a single
>article(
>> even a single time) which support any Pakistani government policy to
>> date( that shows your bias and one -track mentality)
>>
>
>I can easily guess why Mr. Syed would rather
>publicize articles that support the position of
>Pakistan's military dictatorship. But if
>responsible Pakistani journalists and writers
>don't toe the line of Pakistan's military
>dictatorship, it is because their primary loyalty
>is toward Pakistan and its common citizens rather
>than toward Pakistan's military dictators and
>their henchmen.
Those who have read my posts know I am not a fan of Pakistan military
or politicians( I rank them both in the same ) . I even asked a
question to someone I know who is very close to Sharif family( I can’t
even write more than that how close they are without jeopardizing
their friendship) that the saying is they are/were " Goondas" in
Lahore and he affirmed it a bit sheepishly( Cowaas jee in Dawn wrote
an article on that too)
>
>> I want to ask few questions to you Mr. NK
Mr.NK very cunningly avoided all the Questions I asked in my previous
post. .
>Mr. Syed should ask himself why he insists on
>denouncing articles by well known Pakistani
>journalists and authors as "anti Pakistani
>articles"? If Mr. Syed were honest, he would
>have readily recognized that articles toeing
>the military dictatorship in Pakistan are the
>ones that are "anti Pakistani articles".
I have not denounced any of those articles , not even
discussed those articles( this is your propaganda)
>> ..... you are no friend of Pakistan but a
>> cunning anti-Pakistani Hindu .....
>
>Mr. Syed's vtuperation gives away his game.
>He would have no doubt liked to say that the
>Pakistani journalists and writers who do not
>toe the line of Pakistan's military dictatrship
>are all "cunning anti-Pakistan Hindus"!!!
See again I have never questioned their sincerity or freedom to write
whatever they write but your pick and choose re-posting policy.
>>>Mr. Syed is the type
>>>that military dictators in Pakistan have depended on
>>>to perpetuate their dictatorships.
I am a very vocal critic of Yahya Khan, Ayub khan and Zia . I have
always blamed Yahya and Bhutto for East Pakistan fiasco but you will
not admit that as it goes against your agenda. I am no fan of
musharraf either but I was no fan of Nawaz or Baynazir either. My love
goes only to Pakistan and poor masses of Pakistan( I belong to one)
I have never believed there is any democracy in Pakistan yet. However
I give credit to Musharraf to let people post whatever they want
otherwise you will not be able to re-post( in fact you will be out of
business) all those articles which you post ( knowing Pakistan it was
not possible even in brief democratic times when Nawaz/ Bhutto were in
power. these journalists would have been disappeared in their times).
I do not condone Musharraf government's policy of putting Hashmi in
jail but that may be a ploy of making him a great politician of
future times.
>> Mr.Nk has no idea how critical I am/was of military rule/policies
>> when in as in Pakistan( even politely warned by one senior to cool
>it
>> as I myself was working in a semi-government estblishment).
>>
>
>And I still have no idea, and understandably so,
>in Mr. Syed's denunciation of Pakistani writers
>and journalists who do not toe the line of the
>Kakul kleptocrats.
I have never denounced them, this is your false propaganda . I have no
doubt denounced you for choosing only these articles and used them for
your malicious anti-Pakistani agenda.
>>>
>>>It is a truism that democracies do not give priority
>>>to waging war on each other.
>>
>> War was waged in sub-continent by a so-called very giant democratic
>> leader Bhutto twice ( in ayub's time and then in yahya's time by him)
>> and the other one in another democraticallly elected leader Nawaz
>> Saharif) and if someone says he never knew that, then these
>powerless
>> leaders have no right to govern.
>>
>
>Another example of duplicity.
>
>Pakistan's military has habitually tried to lay
>the blame on civilians to justify their devious
>games to feather their own nests.
>
>Why is Mr. Syed trying to deflect from General
>Musharraf's responsibility for the Kargil war?
I am not deflecting but saying , it is the weakness of a democratic
leader not to know what is going on in the army or he was fully aware
of everything and now lying about it( army says Nawaz knew
everything)
>The General waged his war behind the backs of
>the civilian administration which had just
>concluded a succssful meeting of the minds in
>Lahore with their Indian counterparts?
I doubt it that Nawaz was out of the loop. Nawaz has grown so
powerful, he sacked another army chief before Musharraf( now Pakistani
ambassador in America general Karamat) . Nawaz was trying to become
Amir-ul-momineen of Pakistan. What he did to judiciary through his
henchmen was despicable and is well known to the whole world.
I have not even criticized your everyday articles( actually re-posts)
against Pakistan military establishment as some of them are not wrong
at all. But I object to your propaganda war and anyone who reads you
or knows you through your articles know that you do not write it for
the love of Pakistan but for the hate of Pakistan.
>And, as for 1971, once again it is dishonest to
>pretend that General Yahya Khan was yielding to
>democatically elected leaders. If deference to
>democratically elected leaders were General Yahya's
>criterion, then he would have rather listened to
>Sheikh Mujibur Rahman whose party had won twice as
>many seats in the Parliament as Bhutto's party had.
If you are not biased , you would know Yahya was a political fool,
alcoholic idiot and was flying every other day to Larkana to get
advise from this Wadera called " Bhutto" ( they wer going duck
shooting together) and acted upon his advises which eventually broke
Pakistan. Yahay was an drunk bum( his deeds during Reza Shah
Pehalvi's party were well known to all and sundry in Pakistan and
world) . However one credit goes to him of orchestrating a pretty
fair election in Pakistan’s history but destroyed it by not giving
power to the winner( if Mujeeb was a traitor why he was even allowed
to stand in elections)
>Bhutto, of course, had his own axe to grind.
No axe but power hungry wadera and nothing else
>But to
>get his way, Bhutto had to convince the military that
>a government headed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would
>not be helpful to perpetuate the corporate interests
>of the military. And that's what was the clincher for
>the go ahead to trashing the verdict of the 1970
>elections.
And now you admitting it was Bhutto which set the stage for yahya not
transferring power to Mujeeb.
>
>And, yes, the 1990s saw Nawaz Sharif and Bhutto getting
>"elected" Prime Ministers. But they were no more than
>puppets. The Kakul kleptocrats were the puppeteers.
Not really general Keramat was sent packing by Nawaz in few days after
he gave some statement not liked by Amir-ul-momineen Nawaz.
> It
>was always the military that did the "electing" (as also
>the sacking) as it played musical chairs with the civilian
>aspirants for Prime Ministership. The Kakul kleptocrats
>always wielded the real power.
Though there is quite some truth in it but Bhutto after 71 and Nawaz
not to long back become evry powerful politicians in good control of
military establichment but then went don by their own blunders.
Bhutto's election meddling and Nawaz's judiciery harrasment went
against them.
>
>>
>>>Peace in the subcontinent
>>>will have a much better chance when Pakistan's voters
>>>get to choose their own governments instead of being
>>>dictated upon by the Kakul kleptocrats.
>>
>> Muslim world gets leader first by big powers before the voters.
>
>If it does so, it is because it has far too many
>Mr. Syeds who would denounce anyone and anyone
>writing against dictatorships as unpatriotic.
I never said that and again this is your malicious propaganda. I
denounce you for your anti-Pakistani agenda. Can someone honestly say,
you have some love for Pakistan in your heart.
>> Hope
>> you are intelligent enough to know whereI am pointing.
>
>Mr. Syed is underestimating other people's
>intelligence by denouncing the writings of
>patriotic writers and journalists as unpatriotic.
Repetition is name of game for shrewd Mr. NK , so he thinks if he
repeat a lie hundred times and I deny it hundred times , it wil be
taken as truth. You better post any article i wrote against these
Pakistani journalists who wrote these articles, I have beef against
you who only choose those articles which go in his and his employer (
Indian government)'s favor.
>It has to be because of the Mr. Syeds that
>the "Muslim world gets leader first by big powers
>before the voters".
and you think I am all wrong ,ask anyone else why there are so many
dictators in Arab world and what happened in Algeria when election
results were not deemed suitable for very Democratic republic of
France( does democratic elections are supposed to produce specific
results) . That nation is destroyed from that day on. In my opinion
you give a chance to anyone who got elcted to work and only react if
he goes against norms of the established principles of the
international community .
>> In my opinion
>> democracy in India and Pakistan is as a fake Rolex watch one buys
>> very cheap in sub-continent.
>
>Mr. Syed hasn't earned the credibility to have his
>opinions get precedence over the opinions of many
>a patriotic Pakistani writer and journalist. Here's
>a small sample of the opinions of such writers and
>journalists:
When did I say that. They have their right to say what they want and I
have my right to say what I want and that precisely is what is called
democracy and I never objected to whatever they said , in fact I am
in line with them on quite a few things.
AGAIN I NEVER DENOUNCED THEM BUT YOU BECSUE OF YOUR SELCTIVE PICK AND
CHOOSE RE-POSTING ANTI-PAKISTAN AGENDA.
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
>
> Let me clear few things here
>
> 1: I have not denounced any Pakistani writer even once whosoever has
> written anything for or against the government line,
>
> I DENOUNCED Mr. NKDatta " WHO PICK ONLY THE ARTICLES FIT HIS
> ANTI-PAKISTANI AGENDA "
>
That's capital, but not quite! It is all style and no
substance! Mr. Syed's whinings don't become any more
credible if he resorts to capitalization or using
larger font size!!
Mr. Syed is extremely brazen to claim that articles by
patriotic Pakistani journalists and writers fit the
"ANTI-PAKISTANI AGENDA". Mr. Syed wants to read the
the agenda of the military dictatorship on the newsgroup
to keep his balance! And that capsulizes Mr. Syed's opinion
of what constitutes "PRO-PAKISTAN AGENDA". Essentially,
he is peeved because he is not getting his required daily
dose of pro-dictatorship and pro-military articles. Sorry,
I can't help him with that.
Mr. Syed might also want to mull over a practical issue.
Pakistani writers and journalists of honor are just not
in the business of promoting khakicracy over democracy.
So, even if someone were so inclined, it would not have
been easy for him to find such articles except in government
pamphlets and publications.
And, anyway, I am not neutral on the issue of khakicracy
over democracy. I'll not post any article extolling the
uniform of dictators like General Pervez Musharraf. If that
bends Mr. Syed's delicate sensibilities out of shape, then
so be it.
And, I am not even sure why Mr. Syed has resorted to whining
about the lack of "PRO-PAKISTAN AGENDA" on the newsgroup. If
that really peeves Mr. Syed that much, why doesn't he help
himself by posting material from Pak regime's propaganda
pamphlets to satisfy his craving for "PRO-PAKISTAN AGENDA"?
Pakistanis like Dr. Pervez Hodobhoy and Asma Jahangir choose and
pick to write articles that are anti-establishment. But, in my
book, they are patriots of the first order.
>
> and post it hundred times and never posts any article from Indian
> press opposing Indian government policies( why becuaee he is Indian
> government stooge) . My beef is with Mr.NK not with these writers (
> in fact many a times I am in agreement with them) Show me one
article
> where I denounced even one of them. I denounce you for your shrewd
> behavior . If you are such an honest unbiased Hindu intellectual,
>
"Hindu intellectual"? Why use religious labels where none
was called for? Does one have to be a "Hindu intellectual"
to prefer democracy over khakicracy?
Mr. Syed is claiming that prove that I am not biased I must
post articles supporting the line of Pakistan's military
dictatorship. That is mighty cunning of Mr. Syed. But, sorry,
I don't buy that.
I am not claiming neutrality when it comes to military
dictatorship. Furthermore, there isn't a journalist or writer
of honor in Pakistan who would write in support of Pakistan's
military dictatorship. I do not feel obligated to post articles
in praise of the Kakul kleptocrats. Since Mr. Syed does, he
should take upon himself to fill the void in newsgroups that
bother him so much instead of throwing temper tantrums. It is as
simple as that.
>
> show me one article where you denounced/criticized you Indian
> government on this forum on ay thing even the Gujarat tragedy
>
Show Mr. Syed?! I don't feel obligated to heed his request -
it is not my responsibility to teach Mr. Syed how to do a search
on newsgroups. If and when he learns to do so, he'll know for
himself that he is making ill-founded statements to shore up his
temper tantrums.
The Gujarat riots were not in the best interests of a
multi-religious India. That was the view conveyed by my Gujarat
posts. If Mr. Syed had bothered to post that view on Gujarat riots,
I most certainly wouldn't have disputed him. In fact, Indian
democracy thrives on such disseminations of concern. So, Mr. Syed,
if you feel like taking "revenge", be my guest and publicize anything
you want to on the Gujarat riots. You'll not be harming India. On the
contrary, you might be doing her some good!
USA is not weakened when race riots or racial inequities.
get publicity. That's because USA is a democracy and not a
tinpot military dictatorship. USA thrives and grows stronger by
dissemination of facts and concerns.
>
>( I can understand
> that as my wild guess is you working for Indian intelligence
> agencies).
>
Mr. Syed's wild guesses are as preposterous as his
temper tantrums.
>
> Now be a man and show readers on this forum where and when you have
> written/criticized any of Indian policy/propaganda line.
>
Sorry, I won't rise to Mr. Syed's baiting. I don't see why
I have to do that regardless of the fact that when it is
pointed out to Mr. Syed that successive regimes in Pakistan
had committed aggression against its neighbors, he takes to
asserting that India has an obligation to indulge the Pakistan
regimes because Pakistan is the younger brother!
Successive Pakistan regimes have acted the Aurangzeb over the
decades. If India had coddled it day in and day out, it would
have fared no better than Aurangzeb's older brother.
>
> On the other
> hand I have always lumped Pakistani politicians/army in the same line
> ( even in a very recent post ).
>
That shows Mr. Syed's bias. It is a measure of
his ethnic chauvinism and class bias that
he comes to excuse the military dictatorshps
on the ground that they cannot possibly be any
worse than civilian leaders that free elections
might throw up.
Ergo, Mr. Syed is at peace with his military
dictatorship. And articles in praise of khakicracy
are what constitutes "PRO-PAKISTAN PROPAGANDA"!
Ergo, I must post articles in praise of military
dictatorships to salve Mr. Syed's bruised feelings and
to prove that I am not "cunning", "Banyaa", "shrewd",
"Hindu" etc. !!!
Now that's mighty cunning of you, Mr. Syed!!!!
But, sorry, I can't oblige you. Posting articles
in favor of military regimes is just not my cup of
tea. I am certainly not neutral when it comes
to military regimes. And I won't pretend otherwise
just because Mr. Syed is throwing temper tantrums.
>
> I know what my people are and how they operate. frankly Indians
> politicians/army generals are not too far away in their general
> behavior( corruption, cronyism, and Gora imitation).
That's very cunning. Mr. Syed is, as usual, claiming that
army generals cannot possibly be any worse than politicians
who might come to the fore thru honest elections and who might
get overthrown by elections. Hence, in Mr. Syed's book, it
is perfectly all right for military dictators to rig elections.
It is Mr. Syed's way of rationalizing his ethnic chauvinism
and class bias in favor of the Kakul kleptocrats.
> The general
> psyche of both Indian and Pakistani army ( Sandhurst rings any bell)
> and general population( volatile & emotional) is the same . Screw
the
> weak and salute the powerful ( thanks to hundreds years of Mogul &
> Gora slavery)
>
Another non-starter. Militaries in democracies
work under civilian supervision. The military
is answerable to an elected government which,
in turn, is answerable to the people. If the
elected government fails to take action against
corruption in the military, it does so at its own
peril because it has to answer the people for
all its acts of omissions and commisions at the
time of the next election.
Such is not the case under a military dictatorship
that is answerable to no one but itself. Of course,
Mr. Syed is at peace with this because of his
ethnic chauvinism and class bias. His feelings are
bruised if no one posts articles in praise of
military dictatorships!
>
>>On 20 Dec 2004 15:03:34 -0800, nkdat...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>
>>syed wrote:
>>> On 20 Dec 2004 12:13:32 -0800, nkdat...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>>>>"NK" posts are not anti-Pakistani posts.
>>>>
>>>>The posts that Mr. Syed has chosen to despise are
>>>>usually excerpts from articles by thoughtful Pakistani
>>>>writers
>
> I despise you
>
Mr. Syed can despise me all he wants. I can live with that.
I am not dying for Mr. Syed's regard. In fact, I would
conclude that I must be doing something wrong if the likes
of Mr. Syed were to shower praise on me. If despising
me is what it takes to soothe Mr. Syed's bruised feelings,
then so be it.
>
> not them as you use those articles which fit your
> anti-Pakistani propaganda .
>
We have gone over this quite a few times. Mr. Syed
has a warped view of what constitutes "anti-Pakistani
propaganda" - it is a view moulded by Mr. Syed's
ethnic chauvinism and his class bias.
I strongly believe that pro-military-regime posts
would be the epitome of "anti-Pakistan propaganda".
I never indulge in that. If that troubles Mr. Syed
then he is free to fill that void in newsgroups
by posting pro-military and pro-dictatorship articles
of his choice.
While that might indeed salve Mr. Syed's bruised feelings,
he'll be thereby indulging in anti-Pakistani propaganda,
at least in the book of all those who wish Pakistan well.
>
>>>>and journalists who are all patriots of the
>>>>first order. They write, what they write, only because
>>>>they wish Pakistan well.
>
> I have never questioned their patriotism ( even agreed with them but
> you choose only those articles which go in favor of your propaganda.
>
In other words, Mr. Syed will only be appeased if
I post pro-military-regime articles as well!
Sorry, I can't do that. I am not neutral when
it comes to military regimes. I have never pretended
to be so. I am for democracy over khakicracy.
If Mr. Syed moans the lack of pro-military-dioctatorship
posts in the newsgroup, he needs to help himself to
fill that void in his life. I will not help him to do so
in spite of Mr. Syed's temper tantrums. He can despise
me for that as much as he wants.
Pakistanis like Dr. Pervez Hodobhoy and Asma Jahangir choose
and pick to write articles that are anti-establishment. But,
in my book, they are patriots of the first order.
>
> Answer me why have you not posted even one article where an Indian
> journalist( thousands of them write everyday against Indian
government
> policies, only you have placed blinders on your eyes fro them) has
> criticized Indian policies????
>
I am not obligated to teach Mr. Syed how to do a search
on newsgroups. He can find it out for himself.
If Gujarat is his pet topic, Mr. Syed can easily do a
serach on that too.
But, yes, I will not post an article that pleads the
replacement of democracy with khakicracy in India. In
fact, the question is moot since no writer or journalist
of honor ever advocates such a trade.
In Pakistan, unfortunately, there are those like Mr. Syed
who are so blinded by ethnic chauvinism and class bias that
they will argue that military dictators cannot possibly
be any worse than civilians who might get elected in an
honest election and get overthrown thru an honest election.
But, that of course is a very dishonest argument.
>
>>> All these articles you post without fail are all critical of
>>> Pakistani Kashmir policy . Why have you not posted a single
>>> article(even a single time) which support any Pakistani
>>> government policy to date( that shows your bias and
>>> one -track mentality)
>>
>>I can easily guess why Mr. Syed would rather
>>publicize articles that support the position of
>>Pakistan's military dictatorship. But if
>>responsible Pakistani journalists and writers
>>don't toe the line of Pakistan's military
>>dictatorship, it is because their primary loyalty
>>is toward Pakistan and its common citizens rather
>>than toward Pakistan's military dictators and
>>their henchmen.
>
> Those who have read my posts know I am not a fan of Pakistan military
> or politicians( I rank them both in the same ) .
>
And that's what reveals Mr. Syed's ethnic chauvinism
and class bias. He likes to pretend that military
dictators cannot possibly be any worse than civilian
leaders who come up thru elections and go down
thru elections. That's a dishonest line.
>
> I even asked a
> question to someone I know who is very close to Sharif family( I
can't
> even write more than that how close they are without jeopardizing
> their friendship) that the saying is they are/were " Goondas" in
> Lahore and he affirmed it a bit sheepishly( Cowaas jee in Dawn wrote
> an article on that too)
>
>>> I want to ask few questions to you Mr. NK
>
> Mr.NK very cunningly avoided all the Questions I asked in my
previous
> post. .
>
The "cunning" is all Mr. Syed's. His feelings have been
bruised because I haven't posted any article supporting
military dictatorship in Pakistan. From that, it was a small
step for him to conclude that I am indulging in "anti-Pakistan
propaganda". As far as I am concerned, it is Mr. Syed who is
revealing his anti-Pakistan bias by indulging his ethnic
chuvinism and class bias.
>
>>Mr. Syed should ask himself why he insists on
>>denouncing articles by well known Pakistani
>>journalists and authors as "anti Pakistani
>>articles"? If Mr. Syed were honest, he would
>>have readily recognized that articles toeing
>>the military dictatorship in Pakistan are the
>>ones that are "anti Pakistani articles".
>
> I have not denounced any of those articles , not even
> discussed those articles( this is your propaganda)
>
Mr. Syed's peeve is that I am not neutral because I do
not post any pro-military-regime article.
Firstly, writers and journalists of honor are not into
writing pro-military-regime articles - they will not trade
democracy for khakicracy. And more importantly, I am not
neutral on this count. I will not post such an article
because it cannot possibly be by a writer or a journalist
of honor. Such articles will be only from the regime's
propaganda pamphlets touting the virtues of khakicracy
over democracy.
If Mr. Syed is starving for articles that extol the magical
powers of General Pervez Musharraf's uniform, he'll have to
find them and post them on his own. I have no intention of
ever posting such articles.
>
>>> ..... you are no friend of Pakistan but a
>>> cunning anti-Pakistani Hindu .....
>>
>>Mr. Syed's vituperation gives away his game.
>>He would have no doubt liked to say that the
>>Pakistani journalists and writers who do not
>>toe the line of Pakistan's military dictatrship
>>are all "cunning anti-Pakistan Hindus"!!!
>
> See again I have never questioned their sincerity or freedom to
write
> whatever they write but your pick and choose re-posting policy.
>
Pakistanis like Dr. Pervez Hodobhoy and Asma Jahangir
choose and pick to write articles that are anti-establishment.
In my book, they are patriots of the first order. And Mr. Syed
should learn not to question the sincerity of those that
appreciate such writers.
I have never pretended to be neutral about military regimes.
And I am under no obligation to please Mr. Syed by searching
for eulogies of military regimes and posting them. That's
just not my cup of tea. If it is Mr. Syed's, he should go
ahead and post such articles that will fill the void in this
newsgroup.
>
>>>>Mr. Syed is the type
>>>>that military dictators in Pakistan have depended on
>>>>to perpetuate their dictatorships.
>
> I am a very vocal critic of Yahya Khan, Ayub khan and Zia . I have
> always blamed Yahya and Bhutto for East Pakistan fiasco
>
Bhutto (much like Nawaz Sharif) was a creation of the military.
Bhutto was ushered into the corridors of power by the likes
of generals Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan. Nawaz Sharif was
lifted from obscurity by General Zia-ul Huq.
Unlike in a democracy, it is the military that has always had
the last say in Pakistan. If "Field Marshal" Ayub Khan
waged war on India in 1965, it wasn't because Bhutto told
him to but because the military wanted to. The redoubtable
"Field Marshal" thought the time had finally come to make good
on the boast, "Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan" that
had been drummed into Pakistan's military right since 1947.
And if Yahya Khan initiated his "final solution" in East Pakistan.
it wasn't because Bhutto told him to but because the military was
convinced that an Awami League government would be less than
generous to the corporate interests of Pakistan's military. Yahya
couldn't care less about Bhutto whose party had won only a
quarter of the seats in the NA. But Yahya Khan cared about the
military's corporate interests and that's what led him to unleash
the military in East Pakistan to teach the Bengalis a lesson.
>
> but you will
> not admit that as it goes against your agenda. I am no fan of
> musharraf either but I was no fan of Nawaz or Baynazir either. My
love
> goes only to Pakistan and poor masses of Pakistan( I belong to one)
>
Mr. Syed is a businessman (a Banyaa!).
And he chooses to be swayed by his
ethnic chauvinism and class bias rather
than by the interets of his country.
That is why Mr. Syed must preach that Pakistan's
military dictators (who are a law unto themselves)
cannot possibly be any worse than any civilian who
might get elected to lead the government and who
might get overthrown at re-election time if he
fails to deliver.
>
> I have never believed there is any democracy in Pakistan yet.
>
Mr. Syed can thank the military for that.
>
> However
> I give credit to Musharraf to let people post whatever they want
> otherwise you will not be able to re-post( in fact you will be out of
> business) all those articles which you post ( knowing Pakistan it was
> not possible even in brief democratic times when Nawaz/ Bhutto were
in
> power. these journalists would have been disappeared in their
times).
> I do not condone Musharraf government's policy of putting Hashmi in
> jail but that may be a ploy of making him a great politician of
> future times.
>
Ah! Musharraf seems to be as cunning as Mr. Syed.
Both approve of Hashmi's jailing because that will
make him a great leader in the future. How very shrewd!
>
>>> Mr.Nk has no idea how critical I am/was of military rule/policies
>>> when in as in Pakistan( even politely warned by one senior to cool
>>> it as I myself was working in a semi-government estblishment).
>
>>And I still have no idea, and understandably so,
>>in Mr. Syed's denunciation of Pakistani writers
>>and journalists who do not toe the line of the
>>Kakul kleptocrats.
>
> I have never denounced them, this is your false propaganda . I have
no
> doubt denounced you for choosing only these articles and used them
for
> your malicious anti-Pakistani agenda.
>
That's Mr. Syed's way of saying that he is peeved
because I have not posted any pro-military-regime
articles.
But I have explained time and again, that it is not
easy to find such articles because no writer or
journalist of honor will write them. And, anyway, I
have never pretended to be neutral on the question of
military dictatorship. I'll never post an article that
advocates khakicracy over democracy. And that's what is
bothering Mr. Syed.
To soothe his bruised feelings, Mr. Syed needs to post
articles that will fill the void. It is another matter
that no nettor of honor will give much credence to such
articles that Mr. Syed is sorely missing in the newsgroup.
>
>>>>It is a truism that democracies do not give priority
>>>>to waging war on each other.
>>>
>>> War was waged in sub-continent by a so-called very giant
democratic
>>> leader Bhutto twice ( in ayub's time and then in yahya's time by
him)
>>> and the other one in another democraticallly elected leader Nawaz
>>> Saharif) and if someone says he never knew that, then these
>>> powerless leaders have no right to govern.
>>
>>Another example of duplicity.
>>
>>Pakistan's military has habitually tried to lay
>>the blame on civilians to justify their devious
>>games to feather their own nests.
>>
>>Why is Mr. Syed trying to deflect from General
>>Musharraf's responsibility for the Kargil war?
>
> I am not deflecting but saying , it is the weakness of a democratic
> leader not to know what is going on in the army
>
The army needs to follow the chain of command
that ends in civilian supervision. Pakistan,
unfortunately, doesn't have that tradition.
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, for example, was not
kept apprized of the nuclear weapons program. In fact
her request to visit the Kahuta facility was turned
down by the military n the ground that she did not
have a need to know!
Imagine an American general telling the country's
President that he has no need to know about the
country's arsenal!! But, then, America is a democracy
where the military operates under civilian supervison.
Anyway, Nawaz Sharif was a creation of the army. He was
lifted from obscurity by General Zia-ul Huq. And the
General did so because Nawaz Sharif was deemed useful to
the military and not because he was a champion of democracy.
>
> or he was fully aware
> of everything and now lying about it( army says Nawaz knew
> everything)
>
And Musharraf had initially sworn that no Pakistani soldier
was involved in Kargil. And Musharraf is an honorable man!
So much so that casualties of the Pakistan army remain
buried in Kargil. Pakistan hasn't bothered to retrieve
the bodies so as not to admit to General Pervez Musharraf's
lies.
The civilian governemnet in 1999 had just completed a fruitful
meeting with its Indian counterparts in Lahore in spite of
General Musharraf's disapproval. And even during that summit,
Musharraf's temper tantrums had kept him away from Lahore.
And once the civilians signed the agreements, Musharraf did
his very best to sabotage the agreements.
>
>>The General waged his war behind the backs of
>>the civilian administration which had just
>>concluded a succssful meeting of the minds in
>>Lahore with their Indian counterparts?
>
> I doubt it that Nawaz was out of the loop.
>
Why would Nawaz try to queer the pitch right after
a successful summit meeting at Lahore for which he
was taking credit? The Generals had the motive to queer
the pitch. And that's exactly what they did by going
behind the back of the civilian administration. It is
another matter that the Generals had to persuade Nawaz
to go to President Clinton to get out of the hole they
had dug themselves into!
>
> Nawaz has grown so
> powerful, he sacked another army chief before Musharraf( now
Pakistani
> ambassador in America general Karamat) . Nawaz was trying to become
> Amir-ul-momineen of Pakistan. What he did to judiciary through his
> henchmen was despicable and is well known to the whole world.
>
Nawaz Sharif was a creation of the army. But he was
foolishly trying to bite the hand that fed him.
Yes, Nawaz Sharif (much like ZAB) had grown too big
for his britches and the military had decided to put
him in his place. The Generals were all ready and waiting
to pounce when Nawaz Sharif dismissed Musharraf.
>
> I have not even criticized your everyday articles( actually re-posts)
> against Pakistan military establishment as some of them are not
wrong
> at all. But I object to your propaganda war and anyone who reads you
> or knows you through your articles know that you do not write it for
> the love of Pakistan but for the hate of Pakistan.
>
Ah! So I have to post pro-military-dictatorship articles
to prove that I love Pakistan! Sorry, I can't do that even
if only to please Mr. Syed. I am just not neutral on the
issue of military versus democracy. Furthermore, there is
the practical difficulty that such articles are not written
by writers and journalists of honor.
>
>>And, as for 1971, once again it is dishonest to
>>pretend that General Yahya Khan was yielding to
>>democatically elected leaders. If deference to
>>democratically elected leaders were General Yahya's
>>criterion, then he would have rather listened to
>>Sheikh Mujibur Rahman whose party had won twice as
>>many seats in the Parliament as Bhutto's party had.
>
> If you are not biased , you would know Yahya was a political fool,
> alcoholic idiot and was flying every other day to Larkana to get
> advise from this Wadera called " Bhutto" ( they wer going duck
> shooting together) and acted upon his advises which eventually broke
> Pakistan. Yahay was an drunk bum( his deeds during Reza Shah
> Pehalvi's party were well known to all and sundry in Pakistan and
> world) .
>
Yahya Khan was a dictator. He was representing the
corporate interests of the military - that was his
bottom line. Yahya Khan was not about to dance to the
tune of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (who led the majority)
let alone to the tune of ZAB who commanded only a
quarter of the seats in the NA.
Yes, ZAB, had his axe to grind. But he had to couch it
in terms that convinced Yahya that ZAB was grinding the
military's axe. Essentially Bhutto argued that an Awami
League governement would view the military as a West
Pakistan institution and would fail to be sensitive
to the corporate intersts of the military. That was
the clincher that led Yahya Khan to unleash the genocide
on Bengalis.
>
> However one credit goes to him of orchestrating a pretty
> fair election in Pakistan's history but destroyed it by not
giving
> power to the winner( if Mujeeb was a traitor why he was even allowed
> to stand in elections)
>
Yahya Khan was under the impression that no party would
win a majority. That's what the ISI had concluded. Yahya
Khan went ahead with the elections because faulty
intelligence had convinced him that even after elections
the civilians would be so fragmented that the military
would be able to do an Iskandar Mirza on them with
impunity.
To Yahya Khan's chagrin, Awami League won absolute
majority. Futhermore with the help of West Pakistani
parties like NAP of Wali Khan, it was in a position to
enact a Constitution in line with its election agenda.
Awami League was in a position to do so over the head
of the military which, to its chagrin, found Bhutto
party's strength in the NA inadequate to block the
Constitution.
But the military has learnt well from that fiasco.
No longer do they allow fair elections in Pakistan.
That is why, in the 1990s, the military arranged to
play musical chairs for Prime Minister aspirants.
And, now, Musharraf has floated his own King's party
and left all civilian dissidents on their backfoot.
Yes, this "Banyaa sodier" is very shrewd and cunning.
The military's corporate interests are quite safe in his
firm hands.
>
>>Bhutto, of course, had his own axe to grind.
>
> No axe but power hungry wadera and nothing else
>
But Yahya Khan was the one with the power! What
Bhutto wanted mattered little. Everything was
subsurvient to the corporate interests of the
military.
>
>>But to
>>get his way, Bhutto had to convince the military that
>>a government headed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would
>>not be helpful to perpetuate the corporate interests
>>of the military. And that's what was the clincher for
>>the go ahead to trashing the verdict of the 1970
>>elections.
>
> And now you admitting it was Bhutto which set the stage for yahya
not
> transferring power to Mujeeb.
>
And now Mr. Syed evades the truth that Yahya Khan
didn't care anymore for Bhutto (who had only a quarter
of the seats) than he cared for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who
had the majority of the seats.
Yahya Khan initiated the genocide because he was
convinced that an Awami League government was
just not in the best interests of the military.
He had hoped that the civilians would be so fragmented
that the military will continue to rule the roost
behind a civilian facade just as they had done
in "Field Marshal" Ayub Khan's zamana and just as
General Pervez Musharraf is carrying on right now.
>
>>And, yes, the 1990s saw Nawaz Sharif and Bhutto getting
>>"elected" Prime Ministers. But they were no more than
>>puppets. The Kakul kleptocrats were the puppeteers.
>
> Not really general Keramat was sent packing by Nawaz in few days
after
> he gave some statement not liked by Amir-ul-momineen Nawaz.
>
Yes, Nawaz Sharif (like ZAB), had grown too big for his
breeches. The generals immediately got together to teach the
upstart a lesson. The generals were all ready and waiting
to pounce when Nawaz Sharif dismissed Musharraf. He is lucky
that the Generals didn't do a ZAB on him.
>
>> It
>>was always the military that did the "electing" (as also
>>the sacking) as it played musical chairs with the civilian
>>aspirants for Prime Ministership. The Kakul kleptocrats
>>always wielded the real power.
>
> Though there is quite some truth in it but Bhutto after 71 and Nawaz
> not to long back become evry powerful politicians in good control of
> military establichment but then went don by their own blunders.
> Bhutto's election meddling and Nawaz's judiciery harrasment went
> against them.
>
Nawaz Sharif, like ZAB, were created by the military.
They rode a tiger to power. Not surprisingly, they
got devoured the moment they were forced to dismount.
>
>>>>Peace in the subcontinent
>>>>will have a much better chance when Pakistan's voters
>>>>get to choose their own governments instead of being
>>>>dictated upon by the Kakul kleptocrats.
>>>
>>> Muslim world gets leader first by big powers before the voters.
>>
>>If it does so, it is because it has far too many
>>Mr. Syeds who would denounce anyone and anyone
>>writing against dictatorships as unpatriotic.
>
> I never said that and again this is your malicious propaganda.
>
That's quite brazen. One minute Mr. Syed is castigating me
for not posting any pro-military-dictatorship articles, the
very next minute he is denying that he prefers khakicracy over
democracy!
In fact, time and again, he has argued that Pakistan's military
dictator's cannot possibly be any worse than civilians who might
get elected to lead the government in an honest election and
then get overthrown in an honest election because they failed
to deliver!
> I denounce you for your anti-Pakistani agenda.
Mr. Syed needs to denounce himself. He is the one who
has a soft corner for anti-Pakistan propaganda, so much
so, that he wants me to post pro-military-regime articles
to prove that I am neutral. But I have never pretended
to be neutral on the khakicracy versus democracy issue.
If Mr. Syed's feelings get bruised in the process, then
so be it.
>
> Can someone honestly say,
> you have some love for Pakistan in your heart.
>
Mr. Syed should first ask of himself that question.
Ethnic chauvinism and class bias are not the
basis of patriotism. The Pakistani authors that
wrote the articles I posted are patriotic Pakistanis.
If that hurts Mr. Syed, he is clearly lacking in
patriotism.
>
>>> Hope
>>> you are intelligent enough to know whereI am pointing.
>>
>>Mr. Syed is underestimating other people's
>>intelligence by denouncing the writings of
>>patriotic writers and journalists as unpatriotic.
>
> Repetition is name of game for shrewd Mr. NK , so he thinks if
he
> repeat a lie hundred times and I deny it hundred times , it wil be
> taken as truth. You better post any article i wrote against these
> Pakistani journalists who wrote these articles, I have beef against
> you who only choose those articles which go in his and his employer (
> Indian government)'s favor.
>
Pakistanis like Dr. Pervez Hodobhoy and Asma Jahangir choose and
pick to write articles that are anti-establishment. But, in my
book, they are patriots of the first order.
I am not going to choose to post a pro-military-dictatorship
article to appease Mr. Syed. I am just not neutral on that
issue, neither are the common citizens of Pakistan. Musharraf
knows that only too well. And that is why he must rig
referundums to get 99% approval for himself.
>
>>It has to be because of the Mr. Syeds that
>>the "Muslim world gets leader first by big powers
>>before the voters".
>
> and you think I am all wrong ,ask anyone else why there are so many
> dictators in Arab world and what happened in Algeria when election
> results were not deemed suitable for very Democratic republic of
> France( does democratic elections are supposed to produce specific
> results) . That nation is destroyed from that day on. In my opinion
> you give a chance to anyone who got elcted to work and only react if
> he goes against norms of the established principles of the
> international community .
>
Yes, blame it all on the west!
And now Mr. Syed will go on to say that the dictators
of OIC countries cannot possibly be any worse than
civilians who might get elected in honest elections.
Excuses and excuses! And, then Mr. Syed has the nerve
to demand that I prove my neutrality by posting articles
on the virtues of khakicracy!!
>
>>> In my opinion
>>> democracy in India and Pakistan is as a fake Rolex watch one buys
>>> very cheap in sub-continent.
>>
>>Mr. Syed hasn't earned the credibility to have his
>>opinions get precedence over the opinions of many
>>a patriotic Pakistani writer and journalist. Here's
>>a small sample of the opinions of such writers and
>>journalists:
>
> When did I say that. They have their right to say what they want and
I
> have my right to say what I want and that precisely is what is called
> democracy and I never objected to whatever they said , in fact I am
> in line with them on quite a few things.
>
> AGAIN I NEVER DENOUNCED THEM BUT YOU BECSUE OF YOUR SELCTIVE PICK
AND
> CHOOSE RE-POSTING ANTI-PAKISTAN AGENDA.
>
Capital letter or larger font size don't lend credibility
to a basically dishonest statement.
Pakistanis like Dr. Pervez Hodobhoy and Asma Jahangir
choose and pick to write articles that are anti-establishment.
That doesn't render their articles "ANTI-PAKISTAN". Nor is that
grounds to question their patriotism.
And if I choose and pick to like such articles, that is my
prerogative. It is downright foolish of Mr. Syed to think
that I must eulogise the military and its dictatorship to
prove that I am not "ANTI-PAKISTAN". In fact, it is Mr. Syed
who needs to transcend his ethnic chauvinism and class bias
to prove that he is "PRO-PAKISTAN".
Furthermore, it is important to remember that democracies
are not into giving a high priority to waging war on
sister democracies. Peace will have a far better future in
the subcontinent when Pakistan becomes a sister democracy
where the priority will be to deliver to win re-elections.
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> Memorabilia On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:02:07 -0600, "Surinder Singh"
> <com_yah...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>But let me answer the question: India beleives that it got Kashmir
>>>>fair and square.
>>>
>>> May be by bribing Mount Batton or winning a vote in some secret
>>> ballot.
>>
>>The rules of partition were that the king of a province decides.
Maharaj
>>Gulab Singh opted for India and hence that is it. What is not fair
and
>>square about it?
>
> Nothings as he was a dictator and has no right to did that without
the
> vote of his people. India split was with a vote . Kashmir was a part
> of India and it's faith should also have been decided with the
same
> principal. What happened to Hydrabad Dekkan and Juan Garh then.
> Rulers opted for Pakistan but India used force to keep them in
India.
> Totally against your logic above.
>
In spite of all the facts, Mr. Syed will insist that right is wrong
and wrong is right!!!
Let's consider the accession of the 4 princely states Junagarh,
Jammu & Kashmir, Kalat and Hyderabad. Yes, that's in in chronological
order of their accession.
Pakistan wanted them all. When Junagarh's Nawab acceded to Pakistan,
it was quickly accepted. And even as Pakistan championed Junagarh
Nawab's right to accede to Pakistan, it was unleashing marauders on
Jammu & Kashmir in violation of the standstill agreement it had signed
with the King to prevent the King from remaining independent.
Pakistan continued with the same policy of ruthless coercion when the
Khan of Kalat, like the King of Jammu & Kashmir, tried to remain
independent. Kalat was coerced into joining Pakistan. But come
Hyderabad,
and all of a sudden Pakistan was all gaga about the Nizam's right to
remain independent!
Pakistan couldn't care less for what was right and what was wrong. It
spoke from both sides of its mouth as it tried to grab all. It
succeeded
in grabbing 40% of Jammu & Kashmir. It succeeded in grabbing Kalat
which constitutes a significant percentage of today's Pakistan in area.
But
Pakistan can't still forget the pain of losing Junagarh, about 60% of
Jammu & Kashmir and Hyderabad!
And regardless of all the references that one might post, Mr. Syed is
determined to maintain that right is wrong and that wrong is right!!
Furthermore, he has convinced himself that all this happened because
Nehru,
the evil Kashmiri Pandit, was either sleeping with Lady "Mount Batton"
or bribing Lord "Mount Batton"!!!
Surinder Singh
> Mr. NK
> All these articles you post without fail are all critical of
> Pakistani Kashmir policy . Why have you not posted a single article(
> even a single time) which support any Pakistani government policy to
> date( that shows your bias and one -track mentality)
I do not get this. Why must you prove your unbiasness by blaming both
parties? That seems like a childish way to prove an unbiased intellect.
For instance, if you write critical stuff about the Nazis, you must include
at least something critical of Jews. If you write about atrocities of
Ghengiz Khan, then you must write about something negative about the peoples
from the steppes to Hungary (all of them). If you write something about the
the Pakistan army's genocide in BD, you must write something about BD's that
is critical. If you write about the killing of 2000 Bhudist monks in Taxila
by Mohammad Bhaktiyar in a single day, then to be shown as ubiased you must
write something against the monks too.
-s
syed
>In spite of all the facts, Mr. Syed will insist that right is wrong
>and wrong is right!!!
OK I will go through your post and at the end I will prove how right
or wrong India was in all this independence time mess.
>
>Let's consider the accession of the 4 princely states Junagarh,
>Jammu & Kashmir, Kalat and Hyderabad. Yes, that's in in chronological
>order of their accession.
>
>Pakistan wanted them all. When Junagarh's Nawab acceded to Pakistan,
>it was quickly accepted.
However India never let it happen and forced it all in India( India
even to date says Kashmir become part of India because of Raja(
dictator) of Kashmir acceded to India ) even against the wished of
majority Muslim population of Kashmir . But it is ok for a so-called
democratic India to take both Juna Garh and Kashmir with diabolically
opposite logic( just because India was much more powerful than
Pakistan in 1947) . Might is always right plays in the end, all claims
of fair play, civility and humanity are all political statements
for simple people.
>And even as Pakistan championed Junagarh
>Nawab's right to accede to Pakistan, it was unleashing marauders on
>Jammu & Kashmir in violation of the standstill agreement it had signed
>with the King to prevent the King from remaining independent.
Because learning India’s example of might is right, Pakistan realized
it will not get anything with talks/slogans anymore so took whatever
little part of Kashmir with force is still with Pakistan.
proving my point of might is right is proven in 1947 India.
>
>Pakistan continued with the same policy of ruthless coercion when the
>Khan of Kalat, like the King of Jammu & Kashmir, tried to remain
>independent. Kalat was coerced into joining Pakistan. But come
>Hyderabad,
>and all of a sudden Pakistan was all gaga about the Nizam's right to
>remain independent!
Even if I agree to your statement that Khan of Qalat was coerced then
isn’t this a fact that
Nizam of Hydrabad was forced by Patel at the gun point to change his
stance and become a part of India otherwise get ready to die ( Say it
is not true Mr. NK) So if you blaming Pakistan for coercing Khan of
Qalat, India did much more uncivilized & heinous thing by forcing
Nizam of Hydrabad into joining India on gun point when he visited
Nizam with a Police contingent.
This is called cattle calling pot black.
>
>Pakistan couldn't care less for what was right and what was wrong. It
>spoke from both sides of its mouth as it tried to grab all.
OK even if I agree with you , Pakistan just tried to grab it, India in
actuality grabbed it after talking from both sides of his mouth with
totally opposite logic. So Mr. Nk who is the biggest thief, crook ,
one who just thought of it or the one who actually did it???
Two guys thought of raping a famous India actress, one just thought
of it but stayed home , other actually forced himself in her bedroom
and raped her. Now who should/will get the punishment on ehwo just
thought of it or one who actually went and did it??? That is the
difference between India and pakisdtan on these princely states Mr.
NK. If youtalk of not sticking to one set of principal, I will agree
both were/are guilty.
> It
>succeeded
>in grabbing 40% of Jammu & Kashmir.
And India succeeded in grabbing 60% of Kashmir, all of Guna Garh and
Hydrabad Dekkan . All because India was more powerful, had more
resources & more manpower at the time of independence. Goled Rule of
" MIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT" played very well.
>It succeeded in grabbing Kalat
>which constitutes a significant percentage of today's Pakistan in area.
And India with the same token succeeded in grabbing Kashmir, Hydrabad,
Dekkan & Juna Garh.
>But
>Pakistan can't still forget the pain of losing Junagarh, about 60% of
>Jammu & Kashmir and Hyderabad!
I personally can agree with Juna Garh & Hydrabad joining India due to
it's majority Hindu Population and geography. But Kashmir accession is
illegal in the eyes of Pakistanis and the world ( that is why there
are so many resolutions on Kashmir as for Palestine, both were grabbed
with power)
>
>And regardless of all the references that one might post, Mr. Syed is
>determined to maintain that right is wrong and that wrong is right!!
read above again and tell us if India has taken all these states
under one set of rule or different set of rules. Why India succeeded
having the lion share of all these states under still valid "might is
right rule" . All others slogans of civility are for stupid junta to
fool. Never work. WE know India is no saint or civilized. Just full
of greed.
>Furthermore, he has convinced himself that all this happened because
>Nehru,
>the evil Kashmiri Pandit, was either sleeping with Lady "Mount Batton"
>or bribing Lord "Mount Batton"!!!
Nehru no doubt was a cunning shrewd Brahman Hindu otherwise he could
not succeed having all these voluntarily acceded to India and even
those not voluntarily not acceded states . This is called in Banyaa
logic
"chit bhee mera puth bhee meraa" meaning both sides of the coin are
mine in at oss up as I was/am more powerful.
Tell me if I have all the facts wrong and I will let some un-biased
fellow correct mine or your stand.
habshi
>even to date says Kashmir become part of India because of Raja(
dictator) of Kashmir acceded to India ) even against the wished of
majority Muslim population of Kashmir . But it is ok for a so-called
democratic India to take both Juna Garh and Kashmir with diabolically
opposite logic( just because India was much more powerful than
Pakistan in 1947) <
You have to look at events in the context of the time.
India refused to accept the two nation theory and didnt drive out the
Muslims , as Pakistan did to the Hindus .
At partition a million Hindus and Sikhs were killed by Jinnah
encouraged tribals . Junagadh and Hyderabad didnt happen for another
year and India responded because of the pleas of the 90% Hindus there.
Kashmir action started earlier when Pakistan sent in the Muj and its
army even though the Maharaja asked for a one year standstill and
Pakistan had agreed . When you start a war and then lose , dont
complain if you lose territory.
An interesting story is told about how Pt. Nehru in collusion with
Mountbatten opposed till the end Sardar Patel's resolve to solve the
Hyderabad problem at one go by Police action in September, 1948 as the
Nizam was conspiring to set up a free Muslim State in the heart of
India. This shilly-shallying on the part of Indian Government
encouraged the Nizam not only to conspire against India even in
collusion with Pakistan and the Tory elements, including Churchill in
Britain, but also the Portuguese in Goa. Right till his stay in India
by June 21, 1948, Mountbatten was trying for special status for
Hyderabad
Hyderabad even while the Nizam was dreaming of keeping Hyderabad
independent and even becoming a member of the UNO. Unlike rulers of
other States he was given a year's stand-still agreement to make up
his mind on the final accession with India. As a result the Nizam's
paltry forces and the hordes of fanatical Razakars under
Kasim Rizvi were being constantly strengthened, arms being brought in
from UK and other European countries to fight India and atrocities
being perpetrated on the 90 per cent Hindu population of the State to
Islamise them or drive them out of the State. Even contiguous
territories of India in Madras and Bombay provinces were being raided.
As Durga Das, a former Editor of The Hindustan Times, narrates in his
memories India-From Curzon to Nehru, there were 'days of tenseness and
high drama' in New Delhi particularly in the Cabinet. Pt. Nehru still
wanted a peaceful solution, for fear of Pakistan's reaction, while
Patel was pressing for Police action soon after Mountbatten left. And
as Pt. Dwarka Prasad Mishra, a Patelite who was then Home Minister of
Madhya Pradesh, relates in his memoirs (Living an Era) how opposed
Nehru was to the use of force for fear of Pakistan, was revealed to
him by Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, a Central Cabinet Minister at that
time.
Syama Prasad Mookerjee's retort to Nehru
According to this story told by Dr Mookerjee, "When a Cabinet meeting
had ended after deciding to resort to Police action, Nehru sent for
him (Mookerjee) and after expressing displeasure for his support to
Patel in resorting to Police action, warned him that Pakistan would
retaliate by invading West Bengal and that Calcutta might be bombed.
Mookerjee had then replied that the people of West Bengal and Calcutta
had enough patriotism to suffer and sacrifice and would rejoice to
hear that (General) J.N. Chaudhuri, a Bengali (who was to lead the
Police action) had conquered Hyderabad."
The Nizam had advanced Rs 20 crore as help to Pakistan and stationed a
bomber plane there. In fact, the then British Chief of Indian Army,
Sir Rob Lockhart, had told Nehru that Pakistan would invade India and
Hyderabad too had built up a strong military forces under his friend
Gen. El Droos so that it could resist Indian forces for many months
whereas actually it surrendered within four days.
The Police action had indeed been postponed again and again at Nehru's
behest for four months. Originally, it was to begin in May, 1948, with
a view to bringing it to successful termination before the monsoon.But
Mountbatten did not want it when he was still the Governor General. He
had in fact been warning Nehru that there would a Muslim uprising in
India against it. His Tory friend, Sir Walter Monckton,had become
legal adviser to the Nizam and was negotiating with India.But he left
disgusted as Nizam was rejecting draft after draft of agreement, and
even trying to secure the port of Goa from the Portuguese as an outlet
for independent Hyderabad. The hurdle was removed as Mountbatten left
India on June 22, 1948. After Mountbatten's exit, when the Nizam still
talked of further agreement,Patel publicly declared, "Agreement has
gone to England."
Later, as Durga Das says : "Twice the zero hour was fixed by Patel,who
as Home Minister, was to authorise the Police action, and on each
occasion, he was compelled to cancel it under heavy political
pressure. The zero hour was then fixed for the third time (for
September 13) and Patel was determined to see it through. Once again a
hitch developed at the eleventh hour. The Nizam appealed personally to
C. Rajagopalachari (who had taken over as Governor-General from
Mountbatten), who conferred with Nehru and they both decided to call
off action again. Patel was informed and the question of drafting a
suitable reply to the Nizam arose. Defence Secretary H.M. Patel and
V.P. Menon were summoned and they exhausted three hours in
consultation and in formulating a reply. When the reply was finally
ready, Patel coolly announced that the Army had already moved into
Hyderabad and nothing could be done to halt it. Defence Minister
Baldev Singh and Patel were of one mind and had resolved to bring the
Nizam to his senses and not yield to any further counsel of
wreakness."
Durga Das, the veteran journalist who was very close to Maulana Azad
and Sardar Patel since the days of Independence movement, further
writes, "I kept a tab on this midnight meeting through telephonic
connection with Patel's residence. Not unexpectedly Nehru and C.R.
were at once agitated and worried whether it would provoke retaliation
by Pakistan. Within twenty-four hours, the action was successfully
underway and there were smiles all around."
In fact, CR wanted to postpone it further as a gesture to Pakistan as
Jinnah had died the previous night. But Patel refused.
The police action started early on September 13 as the Indian Army
marched in from four corners of the State and the Nizam's forces
surrendered to Gen. Chaudhuri on September 17. However, as it is
said,' even after a rope is burnt, the twist remains'. The Nizam went
to the airport when Nehru visited Hyderabad some weeks after
surrender, but sometime later he was unwilling to extend the same
courtesy to Sardar Patel, but was ultimately prevailed upon to present
himself at the airport. In the course of the conversation, the Nizam
told Patel, "To err is human!" To which Patel replied acidly, this was
true but "errors also had their consequences".
Patel treated the Nizam, whose Razakar lashkars were dreaming of
conquering Red Fort, generously otherwise. He was kept as Rajpramukh
of the State till the reorganisation of States in 1956.Ironically,
this courtesy was not extended to Maharaja Hari Singh who had not
fought India like the Nizam, but had merged the State willingly
despite Nehru's hostility to him. He was forced to abdicate in June,
1949, and leave the State permanently and reside in Bombay at Sheikh
Abdullah's pressure, despite promises of fair treatment to him prior
to accession. Even Patel could not help him because of Nehru-Abdullah
axis for fear of which the accession had been delayed by the Maharaja.
Anyway, the interesting thing is that though Pt. Nehru opposed
Hyderabad's take over by Police action till the bitter end, he was
later thankful to Sardar when he realised during his visit to London
and Paris a month later in October, 1948, that how unlike Kashmir,
there was little mention of Hyderabad and Junagarh in foreign
conclaves, although the Nizam had complaint in the UNO against India
in early September, 1948, and Pakistan had supported it. For unlike
Nehru's handling of J&K, Sardar Patel had solved these problems
successfully and presented the world with a fait accompli. There were
no more embarrassing questions in the international arena after that
although Pakistan kept making noises for some time.
"What is the use of Parliament if you know everything?" said Dr
Mookerjee to Nehru
Anyway, this is what Nehru wrote to Sardar in his letter from Paris
dated 27 October, 1948, in this context :
"My visits to London and Paris have helped me not only to understand
the international situation a little better but also and more
specially the position of India in relation to it... Both Hyderabad
and Kashmir have troubled people a lot here (Paris which was temporary
headquarters of UNO then) and in London. It is recognised, of course,
that the Hyderabad affair is over from international point of view.
It is very fortunate that we could dispose of it rapidly. Otherwise
reactions to it would have been very much adverse to us as it is
difficult to explain everything..." Questions, however, were still
being asked about the future of the Nizam, etc., but that was just by
the way, he wrote.
In case of Kashmir, however, he said although our case is a "good
one", "this business of Plebiscite and conditions governing it fills
people's mind". All kinds of discussions and wrangling with the
Pakistan Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, who too had come to attend
the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in London had been going
on.
Nehru's naiveté about the potential of newly emerging China is
strikingly visible in this letter when he writes : "Definitely India
is considered a potential great Power and especially as a dominant
Power in Asia, apart from USSR in the north... In Asia, everyone knows
that China cannot play an effective part for a very long time. The
only country in Asia is India, capable of playing this part. Pakistan
of course does not come into the picture at all."
It is true that India was considered a potential great power at that
time, but it gradually lost out in the race, as it neglected building
up its armed might, as Nehru thought that only his personal image as
moralistic peace-maker and ace diplomat could overawe the world. No
wonder, we find China challenging India's interests in Tibet within a
year and Pakistan becoming a menace with generous US aid by
1954,reducing India to the position of a supplicant. Sardar Patel had
sensed Chinese challenge even in 1950 as Nehru compromised over
Chinese thrust in Tibet as buffer State. In a couple of letters to
Nehru, Patel had challenged his handling of Tibetan affairs but as
usual Nehru replied he knew better.
Incidentally, this was the reply that Nehru gave to Dr Syama Prasad
Mookerjee also when the latter in his famous speech on Kashmir drew
Nehru's attention to disintegrative consequences of Sheikh Abdullah's
actions, turning J&K into a republic within a republic and
perpetrating atrocities on Hindus of Jammu who had risen in revolt
almost. When Nehru said he knew more about Kashmir than anybody else,
Dr Mookerjee replied, "Then what is the use of this Parliament if you
know everything?" But Nehru refused to listen to sane advice ..... He
refused to heed even the advice the then Vice-President, Dr
Radhakrishnan, to meet Dr Mookerjee once before he left for Kashmir on
his last journey to focus attention on Abdullah's perverse policies.
Within two months Nehru had to put Abdullah in jail... but only after
Dr Mookerjee had died in detention in Srinagar.
(Author: V.P. Bhatia, Publication: Organiser)
August'2001
More 'Hyderabad Watch'......
http://www.reachouthyderabad.com/newsmaker/hydwatch28.htm
....
Prelude in Junagadh
A curtain-raiser to this tilt came over the disputed accession of
Junagadh in September 1947, when British service chiefs tried to
falsely convince Nehru and Patel that the Indian army was "in no
position to conduct large-scale operations" to flush out the Nawab’s
private army from neighboring Mangrol. Patel rebutted bitterly to
Mountbatten, "senior British officers owed loyalty to and took orders
from Auchinleck rather than the Indian government" (p 26). The
governor-general, who constituted a defense committee of the cabinet
during the stand-off appointing himself, not Nehru, as the chairman,
backed off and allowed Junagadh’s incorporation into the Indian union,
not before cheekily suggesting "lodging a complaint to the United
Nations against Junagadh’s act of aggression". Kashmir would be a
different kettle of tea because Pakistan had a much greater interest
in it and the British were wary of the dangers of "losing" Pakistan
from their grand strategic chessboard.
Constraining India at war
Before the Pakistani "tribal" invasion of Kashmir in October 1947,
General Lockhart was secretly informed by his British counterpart in
Rawalpindi of the preparations underway for the raids. The
commander-in-chief shared the crucial information with his two other
British service chiefs but not with the Indian government (Nehru
discovered this delinquency only in December, leading to Lockhart’s
dismissal). After the invasion and the accession of Jammu and Kashmir
to India, Lockhart and Mountbatten worked feverishly behind the scenes
to prevent inter-dominion war, which in fact meant restraining Indian
armed retaliation against the invading Pakistani irregulars.
Patel’s directive that arms be supplied urgently to reinforce the
Maharaja’s defences "was simply derailed by the commander-in-chief
acting in collusion with Field Marshal Auchinleck". (p 42).
Mountbatten, privately chastising Jinnah for actively abetting the
tribal invasion, publicly advised the Indian government that it would
be a folly to send munitions to a "neutral" state since Pakistan could
do the same and it would end up a full-scale war. Nehru and Patel were
certain than an informal state of war already existed and urged an
airlift of Indian armed forces to relieve Srinagar from the rampaging
Pathans. The service chiefs warned that an airlift involved "great
risks and dangers", but Nehru refused to be deterred. In November, as
the situation worsened in the Jammu-Poonch-Mirpur sector and Nehru
asked for immediate military relief, Mountbatten and Lockhart painted
somber pictures of the incapacity of the Indian armed forces. When
Nehru still insisted on action to "rid Jammu of raiders", the British
slyly changed the order to mean merely "evac
The Governor-General was determined to thwart the cabinet" (p 101).
General Bucher saw to it that no measures were made for a lightning
strike across the border and Britain also imposed a sudden cut in oil
supplies in early 1948, with serious implications for India’s capacity
to carry out military operations in Kashmir.
Ismay, Mountbatten’s chief of staff and British high commissioner to
India, Shone, reported to London that Pakistan was "the guilty state
conniving in actual use of force in Kashmir" (p 58). Attlee was, of
course, unprepared to alienate Pakistan and "the whole of Islam" and
accepted the latter’s contention that Karachi could appeal to the
tribal invaders only after a "fair" solution was reached in Kashmir.
Noel Baker marshalled this thinly veiled pro-Pakistan approach at the
Commonwealth Relations Office and then transferred his communal bias
to the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the early months of 1948.
British skullduggery at the UN
Around the same time, the partition of Palestine earned bitter Arab
recriminations against Britain and America, and the Foreign Office in
London decided, "Arab opinion might be further aggravated if British
policy on Kashmir were seen as being unfriendly to a Muslim state" (p
111). An
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
> On 21 Dec 2004 17:12:04 -0800, nkdat...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>
>>In spite of all the facts, Mr. Syed will insist that right is wrong
>>and wrong is right!!!
>
> OK I will go through your post and at the end I will prove how right
> or wrong India was in all this independence time mess.
>
If Mr. Syed is honest, he'll be able to convince
himself how wrong Pakistan's ruling elite was in
attempting to grab all.
And an honest self-introspection would also reveal
to Mr. Syed that the reason Pakistan's ruling elite
dared to try to grab all was because it got blinded
by the same disdain that drives Mr. Syed to put down
Indians (whom he lumps as "Hindus") as "cunning",
"Banyaa" etc.
This is a hangover of the same contempt that prompted
Pakistan's ruling elite to declare on the morrow of
partition, "Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge
Hindustan". Steeped in the belief that one Pakistani
soldier was more than ten "Hindu" soldiers, it took it
for granted that it would be child's play to browbeat
India into submission. Pakistan's ruling elite saw
itself as the rightful inheritor of the mantle of the
Mughal Emperors of yore. And now that the British were
retreating to their island in distant Europe, Pakistan's
ruling elite was all set to grab it all - Junagarh,
Jammu & Kashmir, Kalat and Hyderabad.
>>
>>Let's consider the accession of the 4 princely states Junagarh,
>>Jammu & Kashmir, Kalat and Hyderabad. Yes, that's in in chronological
>>order of their accession.
>>
>>Pakistan wanted them all. When Junagarh's Nawab acceded to Pakistan,
>>it was quickly accepted.
>
> However India never let it happen and forced it all in India
>
No. Not quite. Pakistan did manage to wrest
40% of Jammu & Kashmir and of course Kalat.
Mr. Syed seems to have missed the reason why
I recounted the accessions in their chronological
order (namely, Junagarh, Jammu & Kashmir, Kalat
and finally, Hyderabad).
Blinded by its contempt for "Hindus", Pakistan's
ruling elite had arrogantly declared, "Haske liya
Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan".
Junagarh was the first victim. Its population wasn't
interested in joining Pakistan, and, in fact, the
kingdom wasn't even contiguous to Pakistan. But the
moment its Nawab declared accession, Pakistan's ruling
elite decided that Junagarh belongs to Pakistan.
And even as it was claiming Junagarh on the basis of
the Nawab's will, Pakistan had unleashed armed marauders
on Jammu & Kashmir to force its incorporation into
Pakistan.
Now, that was about as brazen a display of arrogance as
one can imagine. Even as the Pakistan regime was claiming
Junagarh on the basis of the Nawab's will, it was sending
armed marauders into Jammu & Kashmir in contravention
of the standstill agreement it had signed with its King!
It is downright hypocritical of Pakistan's ruling elite
to now talk of principles in the grabbing game it had
initiated in the belief that one Pakistan soldier was more
than ten "Hindu" soldiers.
While India was able to prevent Junagarh from getting
hijacked, Pakistan did manage to wrest 40% of Jammu &
Kashmir. And even today, Pakistan's ruling elite insists
that the business of partition will remain unfinished
till Pakistan manages to impose PoK's religious
homogeneity on the rest of the erstwhile kingdom of
Pakistan as well.
Pakistan's ruling elite continued to display the same
duplicity as it next tackled, first Kalat and then
Hyderabad.
The Khan of Kalat was toying with independence. The
Pak regime was in no mood to coddle the Khan, and Kalat
was soon annnexed.
But then came the Hyderabad crisis. And the Pak regime
would now swear by a completely different standard. It
knew that Hyderabad's population wasn't interested in
Pakistan. Furthermore, Hyderabad wasn't contiguous with
Pakistan either. It was a landlocked kingdom with Indian
territory all around.
So what did the Pakistan regime do? It decided to act the
dog in the manger. If Pakistan can't annex Hyderabad,
neither should India. Pakistan's ruling elite insisted that
if the Nizam wanted independence, then that's what he was
entitled to. Needless to say, the Khanate of Kalat was firmly
in Pakistan hands by that time!
>
> ( India even to date says Kashmir become part of India because of
> Raja(dictator) of Kashmir acceded to India ) even against the wished
of
> majority Muslim population of Kashmir .
>
Yes, Jammu & Kashmir has a majority Muslim
population. That is because India was not
into the type of ethnic cleansing that has
left Pak-e-Stan (cleansed land) with a
percentage of non-Muslims that is only a
fraction of what it used to be in pre-partition
days.
Kashmiris boast of an eclectic tradition that
certainly is at odds with the religious
hompgeneity that has been put in place in PoK.
Kashmiriyat is certainly anathema for Pakistan's
ruling elite.
Aspirations of multi-ethnic & multi-religious
residents of Jammu & Kashmir have no place under
whatever is left of Pakistan's 1973 Constitution
which would roughshod over Kashmiriyat as openly
as it roughshods over Qadianyat or Zikriyat.
India has two and a half dozen provinces, each
with its own unique culture, language and mix of
religion. Even small & medium provinces like
Kerala and West Bengal have many times more Muslims
than Jammu & Kashmir.
Whatever Mr. Syed might claim fraudulently, there
is absolutely nothing in the Indian Constitution
that is not in keeping with Kashmiriyat, the Tamil
way or the Bengali way. The coalition governments
in Delhi have learnt to coexist with, say, a
Dravidian pride government for Tamilnadu, an
"untouchable" government for Uttar Pradesh or
a Communist government for West Bengal.
Whether Mr. Syed likes it or not, Kashmiriyat
can thrive under the Indian Constitution. But it
can never, never, be accomodated under the
Pakistani Constitution which has managed to
alienate even those that claim themselves to be
Muslims (like the Ahmadiyyas or the Zikris).
Pakistan's ruling elite would dearly love to
impose the religious homogeneity of PoK
(Pak Occupied Kashmir) on the rest of the
erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir as well.
And to this end, it has been clamoring "Kashmir
Banega Pakistan" which is definitely not a
Kashmiri slogan. It is a slogan manufactured by
Pakistan's ruling elite and heard the loudest
in the cantonments of Rawalpindi, Sialkot and
Lahore.
Pakistan's ruling elite was irresponsible, to say
the least, to have feigned responsiveness to the
bus diplomacy in 1999 even as it was busy preparing
the terrorists to cross into Kargil.
Pakistani soldiers have no business to be in Jammu
& Kashmir. Pakistani army is illegally in PoK. That
is why the UN resolution had specifically asked
Pakistan to withdraw all its armed forces from PoK
as a first step toward peace. And that is why, in spite
of General Musharraf's services to America in the
aftermath of 9/11, America continues to insist on
cessation of cross-border terrorism as a first step
toward peace for the multi-ethnic & multi-religious
residents of Jammu & Kashmir.
Pakistan's ruling elite is playing a very cynical
game. It wouldn't take back the Pakistanis (aka
"Biharis") stranded in Bangladesh because they
won't come with any real estate. These Pakistanis
have had their lives on hold in UN run refugee camps
because Pakistan claims that it doesn't have the
funds to repatriate the. But it has all the funds in
the world to conduct proxy wars in Afghanistan and
Kashmir. Pakistan's ruling elite craves for the real
estate in Kashmir. But it cares not a bit more for
the Kashmiris than it does for the "Biharis."
>
> But it is ok for a so-called
> democratic India to take both Juna Garh and Kashmir with diabolically
> opposite logic( just because India was much more powerful than
> Pakistan in 1947) . Might is always right plays in the end, all
claims
> of fair play, civility and humanity are all political statements
> for simple people.
>
That is the height of hypocrisy. It was Pakistan
that had wanted to grab all - Junagarh, Jammu &
Kashmir, Kalat and Hyderabad. No principle was
sacred enough to stand in its way as it boasted,
"Haske liya Pakistan ladeke lenge Hindustan". It
went ahead with its grabbing game because it
believed that India can be bullied because surely
one Pakistani soldier is more than ten "Hindu"
soldiers. And it did manage to annex Kalat and
nearly 40% of Jammu & Kashmir in the process.
And now Mr. Syed is complaining that, "Might is
always right in the end"? And he does so, even as he
displays the very same contempt for "Hindus" by
constantly spouting "Banyaa" "cunning" etc. He is no
different than the Generals who believe that one
Pakistani soldier is more than ten "Hindu" soldiers.
Regardless of his public show of simulated outrage,
Mr. Syed is quite aware that Pakistan's ruling elite
was in the wrong. In fact, he has often argued that
even if Pakistan was in the wrong, India, as the older
brother, should have indulged Pakistan, the younger
brother. But if Pakistan was indeed a younger brother,
it was a younger brother in the mould of Aurangzeb.
India would have fared no better than Aurangzeb's older
brothers if it had tried to coddle Pakistan day in and
day out.
>
>>And even as Pakistan championed Junagarh
>>Nawab's right to accede to Pakistan, it was unleashing marauders on
>>Jammu & Kashmir in violation of the standstill agreement it had
signed
>>with the King to prevent the King from remaining independent.
>
> Because learning India's example of might is right, Pakistan
realized
> it will not get anything with talks/slogans anymore so took whatever
> little part of Kashmir with force is still with Pakistan.
>
Mr. Syed is very conveniently forgetting the chronological
sequence of events. Furthermore, it was Pakistan's ruling
elite that believed that it could grab all because one
Pakistani soldier was surely more than ten "Hindu" soldiers.
Pakistan's ruling elite wasn't ready to let the rights or
the wrongs to stand in the way of its boast, "Haske liya
Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan". That is why even as it
swore by the Junagarh Nawab's right to do as he pleases,
it wasn't going to allow the King of Jammu & Kashmir the
same right. To that end, it unleashed armed marauders upon
the population of Jammu & Kashmir. The looting and raping
of the marauders is quite well documented even in
writings by Pakistani writers.
>
> proving my point of might is right is proven in 1947 India.
>
Let's get this straight - it was Pakistan's
ruling elite that swore by the "might is right"
way of doing things. And that is why it boasts,
"haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan".
The Pakistani Generals firmly believed that
one Pakistani soildier is more than ten "Hindus".
And Mr. Syed has the very same hangover when he
spouts "Banyaa", "cunning" etc. at every opportunity
to express contempt for "Hindus".
>
>>Pakistan continued with the same policy of ruthless coercion when the
>>Khan of Kalat, like the King of Jammu & Kashmir, tried to remain
>>independent. Kalat was coerced into joining Pakistan. But come
>>Hyderabad, and all of a sudden Pakistan was all gaga about the
>>Nizam's right to remain independent!
>
> Even if I agree to your statement that Khan of Qalat was coerced then
> isn't this a fact that
>
> Nizam of Hydrabad was forced by Patel at the gun point to change his
> stance and become a part of India otherwise get ready to die ( Say it
> is not true Mr. NK)
>
"gun point" ? Is Mr. Syed speaking literally
or only figuratively?
Yes, police action was indeed initiated when
law and order broke down as the Ansars of the
Nizam took to spreading terror among the
population that clamored for Hyderabad's
accession to India.
But why should that bother Mr. Syed?
(1) Mr. Syed isn't bothered that Junagarh's Nawab
had tried to annex the Hindu enclaves within the
kingdom by force long before police action in
Hydearbad.
(2) Mr. Syed isn't bothered by the fact that
Pakistan had unleashed armed marauders upon Jammu
& Kashmir to force its annexation into Pakistan long
before police action in Hyderabad.
(3) Mr. Syed isn't bothered by the coercive annexation
of the Khanate of Kalat into Pakistan long before
police action in Hyderabad
India's police action in response to the reign of
terror by the Ansars of Nizam happened long after
all of the above. So why is this selectively bothering
Mr. Syed? Is it not a symptom of his arrogance that
he believes that a "cunning Banyaa" has no right to
use force?
>
> So if you blaming Pakistan for coercing Khan of
> Qalat, India did much more uncivilized & heinous thing by forcing
> Nizam of Hydrabad into joining India on gun point when he visited
> Nizam with a Police contingent.
>
Police action was indeed taken to restore law and order
when the Nizam's Ansars let loose a reign of terror. What
is uncivilized and heinous about that?
Mr. Syed's double standard is not surprising. He seems
to believe that while coercion against the Khan of Kalat
was a noble act, coercion against the Nizam of Hyderabad
was "uncivilized and heinous" because the "cunning Banyaa"
has no right resort to coercion!
In other words, "might is right" is ok only if it is
the might of the Syeds and the Ashrafs but not of the
"cunning Banyaa"!!
>
> This is called cattle calling pot black.
>
cattle?
And what's wrong with calling the pot black if it
is indeed balck? Pakistan's ruling had boasted, "Haske
liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan". Its arrogance was
fed by its belief that one Pakistani soldier was more
than ten "Hindu" soldiers. It was able to grab Kalat and
40% of Jammu and Kashmir. Too bad, if it failed to grab
all.
>
>>
>>Pakistan couldn't care less for what was right and what was wrong. It
>>spoke from both sides of its mouth as it tried to grab all.
>
> OK even if I agree with you,
>
If Mr. Syed is honest, he should be able to
admit the truth in spite of his contempt for
the "cunning Banyaa".
> Pakistan just tried to grab it, India in
> actuality grabbed it after talking from both sides of his mouth with
> totally opposite logic. So Mr. Nk who is the biggest thief, crook ,
> one who just thought of it or the one who actually did it???
>
Mr. Syed seems to be forgetting that it was
Pakistan that had initiated the grabbing game.
India merely reacted to prevent Pakistan from
getting away with its irredentist dreams.
Pakistan's ruling elite was, thus, not just
the "biggest thief, crook" but in fact, the
the only thief and crook.
>
> Two guys thought of raping a famous India actress, one just thought
> of it but stayed home , other actually forced himself in her bedroom
> and raped her. Now who should/will get the punishment on ehwo just
> thought of it or one who actually went and did it???
>
Inappropriate analogy. Pakistan didn't just dream
of raping but actually committed the crime. India
is like the policeman who took action against the
rapist.
Some reports from Pakistani newspapers that acknowledge
that Pakistan was the rapist both figuratively and
literally:
===========================================================================
Excerpt from Article in DAWN (07/27/99):
Kargil - before and after
By Zafar Iqbal
"MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to
have created the Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the
tribesman's march towards Srinagar when they stopped for
a bit of "rest and recreation" (R&R) at Baramulla about
a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of
recreation included a diversion into some looting and
pillage and possibly a bit of rape on the side.
Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity
permitted the Indians to capture Srinagar airport and
bring in reinforcements; at least so the story is told.
The ultimate result was the cease-fire line."
===========================================================================
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
10 April, 2000
Kashmir: time to change tack
By Brig (retd) M. Sher Khan
"The story of Kashmir is a long saga, which started at
the very inception of the new-born nation of Pakistan.
While the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was wavering
about deciding which of the two new dominions his largely
Muslim state should accede to, large tribal lashkars from
the NWFP region invaded the state with the aim of forcing
the Maharaja's hand in acceding to Pakistan. When these
lashkars were in a position to seize Srinagar and its
airport, the lust for spoils, loot and pillage got the
better of them. The Maharaja panicked and sought Indian
intercession, the price of which was that he should first
sign an instrument of accession."
===========================================================================
>
> That is the
> difference between India and pakisdtan on these princely states Mr.
> NK. If youtalk of not sticking to one set of principal, I will agree
> both were/are guilty.
>
Mr. Syed has to rethink his analogy to suit the
facts. Pakistan's ruling elite was the rapist.
India was the policeman that thwarted its evil
designs.
>
>> It
>>succeeded
>>in grabbing 40% of Jammu & Kashmir.
>
> And India succeeded in grabbing 60% of Kashmir, all of Guna Garh
and
> Hydrabad Dekkan . All because India was more powerful, had more
> resources & more manpower at the time of independence. Goled Rule of
> " MIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT" played very well.
>
Mr. Syed is making a fool of himself by moaning
"MIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT" as he cries over spilled milk.
When a rapist violates a girl, he does so because of
his belief that he can get away with his crime because
one rapist is more than ten hapless girls. But the
rapist has no business moaning "MIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT"
if he gets mauled by a policeman who is stronger than
him.
>
>>It succeeded in grabbing Kalat
>>which constitutes a significant percentage of today's Pakistan in
area.
>
> And India with the same token succeeded in grabbing Kashmir,
Hydrabad,
> Dekkan & Juna Garh.
>
So why can't Pakistan forget the "loss" of
Hyderabad and a portion of Jammu & Kashmir?
Why is it so important for Pakistan's ruling
elite to impose PoK's religious homogeneity
on the rest of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu
& Kashmir?
Pak-e-Stan lived upto its name (cleansed land)
within months, nay, weeks of the partition. Can't
Pakistan's ruling elite live in peace unless the
Jammu & Kashmir on the other side of the LOC is
cleansed as well?
Here's an article by a well known Pakistan that
should give Mr. Syed a better feel for the cleansing
that Pakistan underwent on the morrow of partition:
===========================================================================
http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/29/op.htm#1
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
29 June 2004 Tuesday 10 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1425
Troubling historical roots
By Shahid Javed Burki
..... In 1941, the areas that were to become first West Pakistan and
later, in 1971, today's Pakistan had a population of 32.6 million
people. Of these 6.3 million or nearly one-fifth of the total were
non-Muslims.
In 1951, with an addition of two million people to the population as a
result of migration in and out of the country, the country's population
reached 39 million. Of these, the non-Muslims constituted only a tiny
proportion, 3.2 per cent. Partition and its aftermath had thoroughly
cleansed Pakistan of almost all non-Muslim population.
For instance, at the time of partition, "the Hindu-Muslim ratio of
population [in Sindh] was roughly 30:70." According to one estimate,
based on the 1951 census, only 140,000 Hindus were left, mostly in
Sindh. In other words, Sindh's Hindu population was reduced to only 1.9
per cent of the total. The same was the case in Punjab. .....
..... the post-partition transfer of population set the stage for the
pressure to Islamize Pakistani society. It also created the environment
in which Islamic extremism could throw deep roots - one of the four
problems General Musharraf says engage him the most these days.
==================================================================
>
>>But Pakistan can't still forget the pain of losing Junagarh, about
>>60% of Jammu & Kashmir and Hyderabad!
>
> I personally can agree with Juna Garh & Hydrabad joining India due
to
> it's majority Hindu Population and geography.
>
That was a mighty concession to the "cunning Banyaa", Mr. Syed!
>
> But Kashmir accession is
> illegal in the eyes of Pakistanis
>
Pakistan's ruling elite does insist that Kashmir is
in its blood. Time has come for a dialysis that will
rid it of its destructive obsession.
"Kashmir Banega Pakistan" is not a Kashmiri slogan. It
is a slogan coined by Paistan's ruling elite and nurtured
in the cantonments in Rawalpindi, Lahore and Sialkot. It
is a clever ruse to justify the apportioning of a
disproportionate share of the nation's budget in favor of
the Kakul kleptocrats.
>
> and the world ( that is why there
> are so many resolutions on Kashmir as for Palestine, both were
grabbed
> with power)
>
Another of Mr. Syed's obsession. He must be as
contemptuous of the "cunning Banyaa" in Israel
as he is of the one in India. Mr. Syed will do
well to rid himself of his bigotry and think
rationally for a change.
If Mr. Syed can be happy with the partition of
India in 1947, why can't he tolerate the
UN-mandated partition of Palestine in 1948?
The funny thing is, West Pakistan's ruling
elite would rather talk about the Palestinian
refugees than about what it perpetrated in its
own yard.
Of course, ground realities in Israel are such
that in spite of all the shrillness of the
complaint of the Arab countries (and of Pakistan)
to this day, a significant minority of Israeli
citizens are Arabs even a half century after the
partition. In sharp contrast, it is the Arab
countries that cleansed themselves of all Jews
(a la Pakistan) in the aftermath of the partition
of Palestine.
Jews of Eurpopean heritage in pre-partition Palestine
were not the minority in the part of Palestine that
was originally allotted to Israel when UN partitioned
Palestine to create a Jewish state.
Furthermore, today, the majority of Jews in Israel
are Shephardic Jews most of whom have either lived
in Palestine for centuries or are from Arab lands.
In fact, the downfall of the Labor Party in Israel
and the rise of the hard line Likud is specifically
related to this demographic mix - the better
educated Ashkenazic Jews (of Yiddish heritage)
yielding to the numerically dominant Shephardic
Jews.
Of course, all this is of little consolation to
those that found themselves driven into exile
after partition. And, I am sure, the grief of the
half million Palestinians who found themselves
in exile after the partition of Palestine were
no less than the grief of the, say, the half
million Sindhis who were forced to go into
exile after the partition of India. And the grief
of the half million Pandits who have been forced
into exile from the Kashmir Valley since 1989 by
the jihadists from across the LOC isn't any less
either.
>
>>And regardless of all the references that one might post, Mr. Syed is
>>determined to maintain that right is wrong and that wrong is right!!
>
> read above again and tell us if India has taken all these states
> under one set of rule or different set of rules. Why India succeeded
> having the lion share of all these states under still valid "might is
> right rule" . All others slogans of civility are for stupid junta to
> fool. Never work. WE know India is no saint or civilized. Just full
> of greed.
>
Mr. Syed is so blinded by his contempt for the "cunning
Banyaa" that he can't even see the irony in his constant
moanings about "might is right".
Pakistan's ruling elite used every ruse and every
coercion it could muster to try to grab all - Junagarh,
Jammu & Kashmir, Kalat and Hyderabad. In every instance,
India merely reacted to Pakistan's perfidy.
Pakistan did manage to win Kalat and a portion of Jammu &
Kashmir. But its ruling elite moans that it didn't get it
all! It cannot rest in peace unless it can impose PoK's
religious homogeneity on the rest of the erstwhile kingdom
of Jammu & Kashmir as well.
>
>>Furthermore, he has convinced himself that all this happened because
>>Nehru,
>>the evil Kashmiri Pandit, was either sleeping with Lady "Mount
Batton"
>>or bribing Lord "Mount Batton"!!!
>
> Nehru no doubt was a cunning shrewd Brahman Hindu
>
"cunning shrewd Brahman Hindu" - that about summarizes
Mr. Syed's contempt. It is a carry over from the very
same arrogance that had led Pakistan's ruling elite to
boast, "Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan". It
so strongly believed that one Pakistan soldier was more
than ten "cunning shrewd Brahman Hindu soldier" that
it can't still get over the fact Pakistan failed to grab
it all!
And incongrously of all, it must now moan, "Might is always
right"!!
But Mr. Syed was on the right track when he wrote of the
rapist. He'll get the picture right when he realizes that
Pakistan was the rapist (figuratively as well as literally)
and India was the policeman. Pakistan's ruling elite went
for the rape because it believed that "might was right" and
that it was the mightiest of all. It hadn't reckoned that
the "cunning shrewd Brahman Hindu" might catch Pakistan in
the act. The "cunning shrewd Brahman Hindu" prevented the
rape of Hyderabad and Junagarh. And Mr. Syed still moans that
it could consummate its evil deed only in PoK and Kalat.
>
> otherwise he could
> not succeed having all these voluntarily acceded to India and even
> those not voluntarily not acceded states . This is called in Banyaa
> logic
>
> "chit bhee mera puth bhee meraa" meaning both sides of the coin
are
> mine in at oss up as I was/am more powerful.
>
> Tell me if I have all the facts wrong and I will let some un-biased
> fellow correct mine or your stand.
Mr. Syed, you have all the facts wrong.
It was Pakistan's ruling elite that thought,
"chit bhee mera puth bhee meraa" as it tried
to grab all. It continues to mourn spilled
milk in Junagarh and Hyderabad. And to this
day it cannot rest in peace unless it can
impose PoK's religious homogeneity on the
rest of the erstwhile kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir.
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
>
> Nawaz has grown so
> powerful, he sacked another army chief before Musharraf( now
Pakistani
> ambassador in America general Karamat) . Nawaz was trying to become
> Amir-ul-momineen of Pakistan. What he did to judiciary through his
> henchmen was despicable and is well known to the whole world.
>
>>
>>"elected" Prime Ministers. But they were no more than
>>puppets. The Kakul kleptocrats were the puppeteers.
>
> Not really general Keramat was sent packing by Nawaz in few days
after
> he gave some statement not liked by Amir-ul-momineen Nawaz.
>
http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec04/P1_jk.htm
..... when [General Jahangir Karamat] accepted the offer of General
Musharraf to become the Pakistan Ambassador to US, it became clear that
his resignation from the post of Army Chief was not because of his
respect for democracy or his commitment to the country's constitution
but because he was, deep inside, a weak man who was unable to face the
secret files of his corruption which Nawaz Sharif's intelligence had
prepared for public release.
These secret files were not figments of anybody's imagination. A case
in the Lahore High Court is still pending in which, besides other
defence deals by other Generals, the following charge has also been
leveled:
"Ex Army chief General Jahangir Karamat took kickbacks of more than
US$20 Million from Ukrainian tank company for purchase of 300 Ukrainian
tanks for Pakistan Army through a middleman named as Colonel Mahmood ,
a brother tank corps officer of Karamat. Former Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif sent the present chief of the WAPDA Major General Zulfiqar, then
serving in ISI, to Ukraine and Azerbaijan to investigate the scam.
General Zulfiqar compiled a complete report of the transaction and the
bribes given. But the Army tried to buy him out by rewarding him with
the post of WAPDA Chairman and promoting him to the rank of a three
star General. The then Army Chief, General Jahangir Karamat was forced
to resign, based on the threat that if he did not, he would be charged
for corruption."
He had therefore quietly removed himself from the scene but the other
Generals in the Army were so angry that they took a decision in
principle not to tolerate any such "humiliation" to the Army again.
This collective decision was basically the driving force behind General
Musharraf's coup in October 1999. .....
===========================================================================http://www.satribune.com/archives/aug10_16_03/P1_chargesheet.htm
South Asia Tribune
August 10-16, 2003
High Court Presented With Massive Charge Sheet Against Pakistan Army
By A.H. Amin
- Ex Army chief General Jahangir Karamat took kickbacks of more than
US$ 20 Million from Ukrainian tank company for purchase of 300
Ukrainian tanks for Pakistan Army through a middleman named as Colonel
Mahmood , a brother tank corps officer of Karamat . Former Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif sent the present chief of the WAPDA Major
General Zulfiqar, then serving in ISI, to Ukraine and Azerbaijan to
investigate the scam.
- General Zulfiqar compiled a complete report of the transaction and
the bribes given. But the Army tried to buy him out by rewarding him
with the post of WAPDA Chairman and promoting him to the rank of a
three star General. The then Army Chief, General Jahangir Karamat was
forced to resign, based on the threat that if he did not, he would be
charged for corruption.
==========================================================================
syed
>If Mr. Syed is honest, he'll be able to convince
>himself
>ow wrong Pakistan's ruling elite was in
>attempting to grab all.
In fact you are saying how right was Hindu Elite to
attempt the robbery and stealing it all. Hindu knew how to play the
wicked game well.
>And an honest self-introspection would also reveal
>to Mr. Syed that the reason Pakistan's ruling elite
>dared to try to grab all was because it got blinded
>by the same disdain that drives Mr. Syed to put down
>Indians (whom he lumps as "Hindus") as "cunning",
>"Banyaa" etc.
No history and my own experience tells me how Hindus operate ( not all
but majority, I admit there are some good souls too) but generally
this is how they operate like you/Habshi do here on SCP. "Shrewdly"
in one word.
>This is a hangover of the same contempt that prompted
>Pakistan's ruling elite to declare on the morrow of
>partition, "Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge
>Hindustan". Steeped in the belief that one Pakistani
>soldier was more than ten "Hindu" soldiers,
I never heard these slogans but may be some idiot have that complex, I
for sure have no such complex . I in fact used to have a pretty good
perception of Hindus( simple, educated, quiet and low key unless I
dealt with one ). I went against general Pakistani stereo typesaying
that all Hindus are very cunning, shrewd and in fact did business
partnership with one, Got burned big time due to my own typical
Punjabi simplicity( giving all control to the little Hindu) . Anyway
learnt my lesson and moved on.
In short let me sum it up with a real life example, one time I went
with an Indian to some Red-neck( country raised white American)
businessman's office. This fellow was blunt, un-couth but a straight
shooter. He asked me if I am another Indian, when I corrected him by
saying I am a Pakistani , he very bluntly replied, same shit. I was
shocked to hear such comments and even angry on his so blunt epithet
and packed up fast and left.
Later I thought of it and found lot of truth in it which I am summing
up here
1: we eat same food
2: Enjoy same music
3: Speak same or pretty close languages
4: Play same games
5: Equally Corrupt
6: Bureaucracy works the same way
7: Share same kind of screwed up infrastructure.
8: Breathe same polluted air
9: Drink contaminated water
10: look pretty much the same
I can go on and on for similarities but what we did at the time of
partition is as I said before , both tried to grab these independent
states with totally opposing logics. Pakistan could not take them( not
shrewd and mighty enough) but India took it( shrewd and mighty enough)
but India as you say played a role of a sanctimonious Policeman(
although all Indian and Pakistani know how sanctimonious & what
reputation a policeman carries in our part of the world) . So at the
end you played again a shrewd game calling yourself a policeman and
Pakistan an alleged rapist( though both played the same game with
same logics as per you) who never could rape but policeman( India)
ended up doing all the rape( typical Sub-continental police behavior)
and now as policeman has a bigger gun in his hand, he is playing saint
here.
Typical Shrewd Banyaa way of doing & projecting things.
Let me tell you and all readers a crude vulgar Indian/Pakistani
joke and that will tell the whole psyche of Indo-Pak working . the
joke goes like this
A poor man's young girl was abducted and raped by some rich
influential Landlord's son in an Indian remote village( this kind of
things in reality happen everyday in India and Pakistan) . Anyway
poor simple girl told her parents who cried but then told by some wise
wo/men of the village to keep quiet and not pursue the case any
further as it will do more damage and bring more shame to the family.
Girl did not agree and forced her parent to complain to the village
temple Pundit. Anyway reluctantly parent went with her to the temple
and Pundit requested to take her statement in private, left them
alone . As soon as they were alone Pundit raped the poor girl and told
her , if she told anyone she will face dire consequences . Girl could
not absorb this and went to police station and complained to the
station in charge , to cut the story short she was raped again when
the Station in charge asked for her statement in private. Girl never
gave up and finally went to the court.
But as soon as judge asked the clerk to take her statement, poor
girl started crying . Judge consoled the girl and told her that to
provide justice he has to start with her statement . Girl looked at
him with stoned eyes and said, sir if you must have to have my
statement , can you wait for few days as the statement is swollen and
bruised.
This crude joke in fact tells the story of whole sub-continent as how
poor/disadvantaged ( persons or provinces) are treated .
So as per you the policeman of sub-continent( India )and as per you
the rapist of sub-continent( Pakistan) both wanted to get the girl.
Only difference is policeman got the girl and strewing it .
syed
Habshi in few word I may had much more respect for India if India has
taken the one who acceded to her or the one which were contiguous and
have a Hindu majority, not all.
Taking all ( those who wanted to be in India and those never wanted to
be in India) is nothing but shrewd Banayaa power play and will never
be accepted by fair minded people . You only play with one set of
rules.
If say Pakistan ( weaker younger sibling ) was not playing by the
rules, that never gives India( powerful elder sibling) right to take
it all.
However this type of things ( family property grabbing by elder
brother from younger weaker brothers/sisters, is a very common
occurrence). However it cannot be accepted as a civil behavior.
Plus why are Kashmiri suffering and divided?? poor fellows are
standing on both sides of the river and saying hi to each other. It
is nothing but arrogance of power. And bankruptcy of civilized
behavior.